Leadership Lessons From The Great Books

Alright. Leadership Jesan from the great books podcast,
Hello. My name

is Jesan Sorrells, and this is Leadership Lessons fourth the Great Books podcast,

episode number 103

with our book today, a short novel, a

relatively short novel anyway, that focuses on a topic

area relevant for understanding and

communication efforts and leadership efforts, quite frankly, in

our own current time.

First published in 18/62, this book tells the

story, about the clash of ideologies,

between generations. Remember I said it was relevant

to our time. The core of this story

focuses on the inability or at least the challenges

that parents and children have in communicating across

the narrow expanse of time when great social and

cultural unraveling is coalescing around them

at exactly the same time.

A lot of what we have talked about this year on the podcast has been

focused around this idea of America exiting the

fourth turning, exiting chaos. Well, before you can get

into chaos, you have to have an unraveling. And our unraveling happened

between the 19 eighties and actually, the 19 seventies in

America and the 19 nineties, except we all

didn't recognize it. Because after unraveling, there is

chaos. And when this book was written, this book was written during a

time of unraveling, which was followed closely by a time of

chaos. And we're gonna talk about all of that today.

Well, in our time, as we begin to exit the chaos that always

follows such an unraveling, as I just said, American

society and American leadership is beginning with fits, starts, and

stops to put back together the pieces of communication between

people, leveraging the long tail of technology and the

technology of the Internet and the narrowcasting of

podcasts and long form video, kind of like

the video you're watching today or the podcast episode you are listening

to today. This process of putting everything back

together is indeed a long process. It will not happen

instantly at the snap of our fingers, and this book

guides us through understanding just how

long and tenuous a process that will

be. Today, we will be covering

the relationship between fathers and sons fourth in the

original Russian fathers and children by Ivan

Perganev. And today, in order

to kind of walk through this, we will be rejoined by

our cohost. And pardon me if you

hear me doing all that. I'm I'm struggling a little bit with allergies. I'm gonna

try to mute as much of that out of this episode as I possibly can,

but we will be rejoined by our cohost today,

Libby Unger. How are you doing, Libby?

I'm great. Nice to be here again. Alright. Could be

a little bit more toned down from last time you were here, maybe.

Maybe. Maybe. I have a little more sleep under the belt. Yeah. You

didn't just you'd we're just jet lag coming back from coming back from India. Yeah.

So this this will Libby, I think this will be a good

conversation today. So, let me pick up

from fathers and sons. Gonna pick up from

chapter 1 of this book by Ivan

Turgenev.

Well, PR thrown it. Not in sight yet was the question asked on May

20th, 18 59 by a gentleman of a little over

40 in a dusty coat and checked trousers who came in without his

hat to the low steps of the posting station at s. He was

addressing his servant, a chubby young fellow, with whitish down on

his chin and little lackluster eyes.

The servant in whom everything, the turquoise ring in his ear, the streaky hair

plastered with grease, and the civility of his movements indicated a

man of the new improved generation, glanced with an air of

indulgence along the road and made an answer. No, sir. Not in

sight. Not in sight, repeated his master. No, sir, responded the

man a second time. The master's side and sat down

on a little bench. We will introduce him to the reader while he sits, his

feet tucked under him, gazing thoughtfully round.

His name was Nikolai Petrovich Kersonov. He had 12

miles from the posting station, a fine property of 200 souls, or as

he expressed it, since he had arranged a division of his land with the peasants

and started a, quote, unquote, farm of nearly 5,000 acres.

His father, a general in the army who served in 18 12, a fourth half

educated but not ill natured man, a typical Russian who had been in

harness all his life, first in command of a brigade, then of a division, and

Libby constantly in the provinces where by virtue of his rank, he played

a favorite, a fairly important part. Nikolai

Petrovich was born in the south of Russia like his elder brother, Pavel, of whom

wore the hereafter. He was educated at home till he was fourth,

surrounded by cheap tutors, free and easy but toadying

adjuncts, and all the usual regimental and staff set. His

mother, one of the Kolyazion family, as a girl called Agatha, but

as general's wife, Agalithia, who's Manisha

Kersonov, was one of those military ladies who take their full

share of the duties and dignities of office. She wore

gorgeous caps and wrestling silk dresses. In church, she was the 1st to advance

to the cross. She talked a great deal in a loud voice, let her children

kiss her hand in the morning, and gave them her blessing at night.

In fact, she got everything out of life she could.

Nikolai Petrovich has a general Jesan, though so far for being distinguished by

courage and he even deserved to be called a funk, was intended, like

his brother Pavel, to enter the army, but he broke his leg on the very

day when the news of his commission came. And after being 2 months in bed,

retained a slight limp to the end of his days. His

father gave him up as a bad job and let him go into the civil

service. He took him to Petersburg directly. He was 18 in a place turning

the university. His brother happened about the same time she made an officer in the

guards. The young men started living together in one set of rooms with the remote

supervision of a cousin on their mother's side, Ilya

Kolyazin, an official of high rank. Their father returned to his

division and his wife had only rarely sent his essays large sheets of gray

paper scrawled over in a book, clerkly hand.

At the bottom of these sheets stood in letters enclosed carefully in scroll

book, the words Piotr O Kursanov general major.

18/35, Nikolai Petrovich left the university a graduate. In the same year,

general Kursunov was put on the retired list after an unsuccessful review and

came to Petersburg with his wife to live. He was about to take a

house in the Tavarishki Gardens and adjoin the English

club, but he died suddenly of an apoplectic

fit. Agalithkea Kumnishka

soon followed him. She could not accustom herself to adult life

in the capital. She was consumed by the

ennui of existence away from the

regiment. Meanwhile, Nikolai Petrovich had already

in his parents' lifetime, Tom to their no slight chagrin, had time to fall over

the daughter of his landlord, a petty official, Popola Novinski.

She was pretty and as is called, advanced girl. She used to read

serious articles in the science column of the journals. He married her directly. The term

of mourning was over, and leaving the civil service at which his father had

by favor procured him a post, was perfectly blissful with his

Masha, first in a country villa near the Lianski Institute. Afterwards

in the town, a pretty little flat with clean staircase and a haughty drawing room.

And then in the country where he settled finally and where in a short Tom,

son, Arkady, was born to him. The young couple lived very happily and

peacefully and were scarcely ever apart. They read together, sang, and

played duets on the piano. She tended her flowers and looked after the

poultry yard. He sometimes went hunting and busied himself with the estate

while Arcadia grew and grew in the same happy and peaceful

way. 10 years passed like a

dream. In 18 fourth, Cursonov's wife died. He

almost succumb to this blow. In a few weeks, his hair was gray. He was

getting ready to go abroad if possible to distract his mind, but then came the

year fourth. He returned unwillingly to the country

and after a rather prolonged period of inactivity, began to take

interest in the improvements of the management of his land. In

18/55, he brought his son to the university. He spent 3 winters with him in

Petersburg, hardly going out anywhere and trying to make acquaintance with

Arcady's young companions. The last winter, he had

not been able to go. And here we have seen him in May of 18

59, already quite gray, stoutish, and rather bent,

waiting for his son who had just taken his degree as

once he had taken it himself.

Why did I give you all of that background?

Well, because, a, this is what Russian writers do. They give you the background of

everybody in the family before they tell you what anything that's gonna happen fourth they

move on to the main action. And Turgenev is, at the end of the

day, or was at the end of the day, a Russian writer. Speaking of

which, the literary life of Ivan Turgenev is probably

worthwhile for us to understand even after

well, even after that whole laying out of the history

of Nikolai and Arcadia.

Yvonne Sergeiovich Turgenev was born on

November 9th, 18 18 and died September 3,

18, 83. He was a Russian novelist, a

short story writer, a poet, a playwright, a translator, and a popularizer of

Russian literature Tom and in the west.

Ivan and his brothers, Nikolai and Sergei, were raised by their mother,

an educated and authoritarian woman. Their

father spent little time with the family. And although he was not hostile to

them, his absence hurt Ivan's feelings.

After the standard schooling, for the son of a

gentleman, Turgenev studied for 1 year at the University of Moscow

and then moved on to the University of Saint Petersburg. From 1838

to fourth, he studied philosophy, particularly

Hegel. This is, by the way, very important to understand for what's about to

happen in fathers and Jesan, and he studied history

at the University of Berlin.

Now what we don't realize now, because a

lot of things have happened, is that back in the day,

Germany was considered to be the high cultural and

intellectual

glittering jewel of Europe. And everyone from Russia

who wanted to learn anything about anything intellectual

or cultural, went to Germany. And I

know that's kind of weird, but particularly with the rise of

particularly with the rise of Hegel, and Hegelianism, and then

later on with the rise of Nietzsche, and Nietzschean

ideas of nihilism, Germany became a hotbed

of intellectual and cultural

leaders for the Russians.

By the way, historically, that's probably not gonna work out

fourth later. Turgenev first made his

name, with writing a sportsman's sketches, a collection of short

stories credited with having influenced Russian public opinion in favor of

the abolition of serfdom in 18/60 1. And this is another

element that we forget about in Russia.

Russia had a system of serfdom. When we think about

serfdom, we should probably think about it in context of American

slavery, which was also,

well, not beginning to be abolished. It had yet to be abolished, but was on

the road to being abolished in 18/61. We were having a

civil war over it. Russians, however,

were just having it thrust upon them.

Fathers and sons, Turgutov's most famous and enduring novel appeared in

18 62. Its leading character, who we do have not

met yet, Eugene Bazarov, was

considered the first Bolshevik in Russian literature and

was in turn herald and reviled as either a glorification or parody

of the, quote, unquote, new men of the 18 sixties.

Unlike Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, who Turgenev did know, by the

way, as a matter of fact, it was Tolstoy who spoke at

his funeral, and Turgenev had a little counter Trump with Dostoevsky

that went on 10 years, if you can believe that. Literary

fights are some of the worst literary fights.

But Turgenev lacked religious motives in his writings. That's something that you see in

fathers and sons. He's not consumed with religion in the same way that Tolstoy

and Dostoevsky are. And he was more

consumed with the social aspects of the reform

movements that were beginning to sweep and unravel Russia

in the 18 sixties and subsequently 18

seventies and 18 eighties, and all that unraveling that would lead to the

horror of World War 1 and then the Leninist

revolution, the Bolshevik revolution on the other

side of that. Targanev was considered to

be anagnostic, and he did not let religion

influence his writers. Unlike Dostoevsky who considered himself a

Christian socialist and Tolstoy who considered himself

a man of god, period.

So that's where we are starting with Turgenev, with fathers and

sons, with Russian history. There's a lot here that parallels

ways in which America has engaged with itself

internally between the 19 nineties and all the way up to

now, right, the last 30 years. Of course, there are ways

in which those parallels don't line up. There's ways in which we we

have parted because we have our own separate history with our

own separate set of ideas. But there are broad

lessons that can be drawn fourth leaders from Turgenev's fathers and sons

and from the literary life of Ivan Turgenev. And so,

I wanna kick this over to Libby now. I sent you

a link to a video about, Turgenev, watched a little bit of that. I don't

know if you watched that. But to tell me what you love about Turgenev,

tell me about the literary life of Ivan Turgenev. And, what do you think of

fathers and sons? Let's start there.

Yeah. You did an excellent job of recapping kind of

the the literary journey journey and the comparison with,

you know, other famous Russian authors. I read

this in high school, and I remember

loving it, but I loved all of the Russian literature.

And I think it has to do with the the deep

exploration of the human condition yeah. The human

condition and understanding, how we all

have dark and light in us.

We all have good and evil. It's about understanding it

and not letting 1 you know, letting

the dark outweigh the outweigh the light.

But if you understand the human condition, in

yourself, first, you can solve for it. And then in you

know, if you see it in others too, you can help maybe help them

see it and act or input systems in place so they act

in their delighted and heart based best

interest. But I just always love the the

descriptions and the lang the Russian language.

What was interesting is I I would never have

guessed that Dostoevsky had a religious foundation.

Like, I don't when having read Crime and Punishment, that

was not a through yeah. Mhmm. A through

affair in that book fourth, yeah, at least for me,

it was understanding the human condition, though. Yeah. Yeah. In the same

way, I think that the Bible is from, you know, all the allegories

within the Bible. You know, they're just ways for you

to understand, you know, good and evil

within yourself and within others and how, the

consequences of letting one

lead more than the other. That being said, what

I was not I always said Turgenev,

not Turgenev, but, I know I was hearing a lot Turgenev,

so I'll go with that. If I flip up,

it's because I always said Turgenev. We can go with we can go with Turgenev

as well. I know Turgenev. Yeah. Tomato, tomato. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm terrible with Russian names here. But, what I really liked

was, what I kinda took away

is the the over over

overreaching theme around balancing progressivism with tradition.

And so what Turgenev, he grew up,

he grew up, yeah, with lots of land and with, you know,

money, but he wasn't, he was a hunter,

and he also, worked with the peasants and

fourth side by side than as a, yeah, than as a owner.

And, you know, he while he was educated in

Saint Petersburg and in Germany,

which balances, in my mind, kind of the intellectual.

He had the intellectual education, but he also had the

human education. And I always think of the

balancing, like, you know, I always essays, I'm city and country. There

no suburban in my in my life. I love the city

and the cosmopolitan

benefits, the art, the food, the intellectual

conversations, cities tended

to always be the art of the possible. Now when cities are

dying, it shows you how,

the art of the possible taken too far without, you know, without

good boundaries Mhmm. Can erode. But for the most part, like, the

cosmopolitan sensibilities, cities are about, you know,

the potential, and urban

and the rural areas and country Tom me is more about the

constraints of us as humans within a broader ecosystem

and understanding how we relate to a

broader ecosystem of you know, with animals and

food. And, to me, that's where

being human Mhmm. Is truly

felt. Like, that's where it's quiet so you can hear your thoughts. It's

where it's quiet, so you can feel the energy of the animals.

You can feel the energy of the land,

and you learn to work in balance with all of that when

you're in the role. And

so what I see the battle,

the unraveling today that was similar to the unraveling that

Turgenev was dealing with in fathers and sons is

the overreaching of the progressive and intellectual.

You know, the nihilism, we don't believe in any tradition.

Mhmm. Everything must be destroyed, because

nothing is unless it has value to me.

So the overreaching of, like, the progressivism

with the overreaching of religion as a

traditional moral

framework. Mhmm. Where Turgenev landed was, yes,

the art of the possible. Science matters. Art matters.

But you balance that with the need to have balance

with the with with land and people

and, and animals.

So he gets to the same place that,

in you know, intellectual understanding

and understanding of nature takes you and but he

ignores the extremes through his language. And where we

are right now, society wise, we have the writers

who are break all systems, and then we have, you

know, the extreme right, religious

that aren't willing to neither group is willing to compromise or

understand positions of the other. At his

time, as you said, like, Bakarov is the first

Bolshevik. He's the nihilist, yeah,

woke, progressive, Bolshevik. You

know, 60 50 years later, you know, the Bolsheviks,

you know, killed the czar and the Romanovs and allowed Lenin to

rise. And how many people did Lenin kill? You know,

20, 30, 40, 50, 60,000,000? Somewhere in there. Yeah.

All debatable. Yeah. But, you know, the both

Sorrells, the czar was extremely totalitarian.

The, yeah, the rise of the Bolsheviks, and ultimately

communism was also tyrannical and, you know, an

authoritarian in its own its own way. So

what I love with Turgenev was it was real my takeaway

Mhmm. And perhaps its projection of my beliefs is a

balance of I do believe in, you know, intellectual

understanding of our history,

the world, but balancing that with true

understanding of the human human nature and

the world we live in and coming to balance

with nature and ourselves.

So it's interesting. The I'm reading this book

at an interesting time in my life, without going

into too many personal details publicly. I'm

in the process of moving from a place that

by an urban conception would be rural anyway,

to a more rural conception,

right? A more rural place, right? A place that's even a place that the people

who would be considered rural by the urban,

entity that exists next door to us. Yeah. The people

who live in this entity consider where I'm going to be rural, which is just

weird to me. Right. And I'm moving my family and I'm buying some land. I'm

becoming well, in, in, in one sense, I am becoming like,

we're, you know, we're gonna start homesetting.

I'm gonna be around like goats and steers and chickens and

ducks. Now the framing for this,

the context for this is I'm reading it is that

I was a kid who like

allergies, pollen, activated my asthma when I was a kid. I

was allergic to, like, animals of all kinds. It was just a mess.

And so for a lot of the years of my life, I Libby in urban

areas, or suburban areas at best.

I don't hike. I I would I would I

would I would concrete over a tree because it's trying

to kill me. Like, I look at a tree who's trying to kill me. I

don't look at it as trying to help me because it's spitting off this crap,

and then I can't breathe. Right? Okay. Yeah. And so the irony,

because God is not without a sense of irony, is that I'm probably

going to end up my life and the situation closer to target have

then Dostoevsky.

Writers. And so I'm reading target at this

stage of my life and I'm reading what he's talking about. I'm reading about his

background being a. And being a part of nature and

being, like you said, this more centrist sort of character in Russian,

literature and Russian history. And I'm also trying to place

that. Pardon me with a cough here.

I'm also trying to place that. I have a cough button folks so that you

don't hear it. I'm also placing that in the

context of the history that Turgenev

or Genya lived through during a time

of everything being questioned. Right. And everything's

sort of coming apart, Not yet the chaos, which was

gonna come afterward because when everything, when nihilists

like, like Bazarov start talking,

you know, there's going to be chaos on the other side of it. And, and

the sense you get both from Nikolai and from,

his, his brother. Is that

they know because they know traditionally they know that chaos is on the other side

of it, but they can't articulate it. And then our Katie,

I think Jesan of Nikolai stands in much more for

target where he's fourth, or to get you up where he's sort

of the character who there's always this person during the

unraveling. Who's kind of going, oh, well, you know, it won't be

that bad. It won't be that bad. If it unravels, it'll be fine. Like we'll

be able to handle it. And there were a

lot of people when I was in high school in the nineties who said that.

A lot of people. They're like, oh, the Internet. It's I don't know. I just

took on the Internet for a moment. Oh, the Internet it's unraveling. It'll be fine.

Like, it'll be fine. Or, you know, by after September 11th.

Oh, it'll be fine. We'll just go take care of it over there in the

Middle East, and it'll be you know, speaking of current events, we'll go take care

of it in the Middle East. It'll be fine. Like, what could possibly what could

possibly go wrong?

And that level of this is gonna sound

hard, but that level of naivete is I

think why is read in high school

and not read so much later on in your life. Because you do get

as you get older and you have more experiences, I would say you become more

cynical, but you become more cautious. Right?

For me, it's more it it's

more about balancing it's it's more about

balancing vision with systems. Right. Writers.

Yeah. And, specifically, what I mean by this is,

you know, you have a lot of folks are, like you know, don't worry

about abolishing slavery and the, chaos on the other side.

It will all work itself out. Well, I

what they didn't work through is what you do with the released

slaves so that they can thrive faster instead of having them

have to figure it out and just be thrown

out of their the place where they were getting fed and had roof over their

head, and they have no jobs and no homes. Which is exactly, by the way,

the same that was the same thing that was said in America about the emancipation

of the slaves. But where we solved that

problem in America was just killed 750,000

people. Like, we just did that. We're just like, okay. Well, we'll just kill we

almost I mean, we almost out wiped out an entire generation during that unraveling

because the spirit of vengeance

that would have been, right, that would have been in the younger generation. The,

the Basarovs was instead in the older generation. It was

in the Nikolai's and the Sorrells. There there also

isn't a trust that you'll do what you're you'll say. Right?

Like, so and to help with the transition. Yeah. So I noticed

this in corporate, yeah, where you you can

plan, you know, a good go to market. You can you can,

plan a good announcement of an m and a event or a

restructuring where everyone isn't left in chaos

wondering what's next. Like, you can have messaging. You can

have, discussions. You can have, you know,

benefits plans. You can have a lot set up to

reduce the stress and uncertainty

of you know, to make that transition easier.

But too many individuals have low expectations

around what that transition should look like, and

it's like, oh, we'll just figure it out. They actually kind of

yeah. We'll just figure it out. So We'll wing it. Figure it out in

government. You figure it out in corporate.

And this isn't about yeah. And so for me, it's the balance.

Bill Maher on Friday was talking about the balance of, you know,

literature are your pedal on the metal, and conservatives are

on the brake. And I'm like, no. You do like, you it's not one or

the other. It's both, but it's being thoughtful about it.

And, unfortunately, most people don't wanna do the work of

being thoughtful. You know, the go go slow go slow to go

fast. They either see it being a brake or an

accelerator, and, ultimately, you do have

unnecessary chaos. So I think

yes. Absolutely. And now in

and this is why I said in my open, it with fits and starts

Yep. The centrists are coming back into the

conversation. Maybe not necessarily

politically because politics is always downstream from all of this

nonsense. It always is at the end of the day.

Yep. And I think it started it's interesting that you mentioned Bill

Maher. I think it started with bill Maher, you know,

where I was listening to him a few months ago.

And normally I'm like, okay, Bill. That's

your position. Okay. That's fine. But

I think he's reached a point where he's more like Nikolai

than Bazarov now. Mhmm. And

he recognizes and I don't think he knows how to articulate this as I think

a lot of folks who fourth used to be

revolutionaries and then the revolution moved on ahead of them to other places they didn't

think the revolution was gonna go to. Yeah. They don't know how

to say, oh, no. Wait a minute. There were some

things worth preserving. Right. And I think he's starting

to roll around to that, which looks like a

centrist position when the revolution is

pushing the fringes. Right? It's pushing to the fringes. Right? Right.

Right. And in the United States,

I think that we did have our revolutionary

moment in 2020. I do. I think we had our revolutionary moment

from, like, the summer of 2020 all the way through to, like, January, February

of 2021. That was our revolutionary moment. And

and I've said this before on this podcast, now we're done. And so when you're

done with the revolutionary moment, the centrists come back into

the folder that at least they're invited in. Now are they gonna look

the same as the centrists that were previously outside

fourth who were saying it's not that bad during the last unraveling?

No. I mean, the

no one's gonna confuse

how can I frame this? No one's gonna confuse Marjorie Taylor Greene with Newt Gingrich.

Like, nobody's gonna do that. You know? Nobody's gonna confuse,

Joe Lieberman with, like,

I don't know. And I know Julie just passed away.

Yeah. Yeah. Like, it's not it's not gonna happen. So the characters are gonna be

different, but the that centrist pullback,

I think, is starting to happen.

I I agree. They let's just

like, let's go to Turgenev with, fathers and

sons and Arkady in in particular.

He grew up on the grew up in the, on the land, then went to

the city and got educated and came back in what he wants to

do. His father is not great at managing the

farm, and it's not doing well. And

Arcady wants to introduce some new practices.

Mhmm. Yeah. With the land, you know, that he

learned when he was away at school. So he's bringing a little bit of science.

He's bringing a little bit of modernity, but he's

not saying they yeah. Go be dead those farms.

It's only the intellect that matters. Right? So he's not saying

all institutions that exist

existed before need to die because they're

not sustainable in their current fashion. Let's bring a bit of modernity,

but smart modernity. And he can say that because

he actually has worked the land. He's worked with the people, and

he's balanced his practical experience with an

intellectual experience, you know, that where I learned about science and medicine

and things at school. Mhmm. Yeah. Same way

today, one,

revolutions take years,

sometimes decades, to occur. I think what

happened in 2020 was an away like, a a broad awakening

True. True. Of the fact that our country was being taken over.

Right. And because it was done

in a soft way, and and we observed it through

digital means, you know, and not loss

of our children. Mhmm. We could say that we're losing our children and we're

losing our, you know, men and women, to the digital space, but we

didn't you know, suicide and a lot of other

things. But we didn't lose them in a a physical war

like World War 1 fourth World War 2. Right. Right?

But, you know, many people could've could see a soft coup

happening. Mhmm. You know, that was the yeah. We were being

redirected away from with an insurrection that

had no guns and no army idea. Right? And no army. Like,

so people yeah.

Like, most people, they probably were believing it until,

you know, like, a few weeks out where the facts started to spew. And

then folks were like, wait. What is not making sense

here? I had my wake up call in, like, 2017 with

the hysterics day in and day out on the front page of The New York

Tom, where it's like, this just doesn't sound like rational

analysis of what's occurring. Like, this actually sounds like hysteria.

And so then I started just doing deeper dives

into news. Like, I would actually watch full videos instead of snapshots.

But, you know, whatever I think 2020 was a

pinnacle where it became like, the emperor we could see the emperor

had no clothes. Right. But, you know, I've used this term

quite a bit. The Leviathan is not gonna give up easily.

Right. And we're gonna see a lot of a lot more

chaos, and discomfort through 2024.

So it's unraveling. I think the chaos is still here.

So what I was challenging was that the revolution

happened. I guess my perception is that chaos is still

around. Well, I wanna be very clear. I wanna be very clear. I said revolutionary

moment. That's not to say that there can be another moment. Writers? Yeah.

Another moment. I I don't disagree with that. I think I think

things are when I was a kid, I

used to in my more my more felonious

moments Yeah. Used to try to, knock

over Coke machines. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And one thing I learned about a Coke machine

is you gotta rock it a few times. You can really do. You gotta rock

it a few times, and then it'll go over. Book things are beasts. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Right? Yeah. You can't just push it once or kick it

once or whatever. Right? I do

think that

there are touchstones along the

way. Yeah. But the

high watermark, I don't I genuinely

and I could be wrong. I am I'm open to being wrong on this. Yeah.

Libby, I absolutely am. I'm open to being corrected on this.

Sure. But in my heart of hearts, I want to

not be wrong. Right. I think the high watermark

was 2020. That was, like, the height of of BS.

That's your high watermark. Everything else after that's gonna be step

down, step down, step down, step down, step down, step

down until we step down into, you know, the new

awakening and we step down into the new way of moving forward, which

Tom get back to fathers and Jesan, may be

that combination of in our time, the

readers coming onto the new

property and saying, these are the things we could preserve that were

old. These are the things we have to inject that are new, and it's

fine. Let's move forward with this. It's a vision of

the Yeah. And to bring that to the modern day, I would

say the expansion of the Overton window back to

normal Yeah. Like, a normal size Yeah. Is

why the censors centrist voices are being

heard. Right. You and and, you know, people aren't

afraid of the retaliation anymore. You know? People are saying what, you

know, what they believe. Like, there was a time when the Overton went I I

didn't know there was an Overton window. You have to be that I was naive

myself, but, you know, that Overton window is

very broad. You're also seeing, a lot of

the political talking points that the current administration

thinks are gonna stick, they're moving through them really fast

because they're not working anymore Right. Which

means, know, kinda the the jig is up. And then finals

finally, regulatory lag is also

another is an example of politics

following culture. You're starting to see a shift on the climate

a a lot of the climate policies, because the

cost of it was was gonna be too high,

the literal cost of it. And the cost to poor who

weren't getting their energy or their energy costs were going up too high, like,

that pushback, like, started to change. You know, plus people saw

that it was the rich getting wealthier and not necessarily

we weren't considering things that were actually going to solve the problem, like nuclear,

etcetera. So Overton window expansion

is the centrist voice is now being able to be heard, and it just starts

with a few brave people. Mhmm. Yep. And people saying they are not killed

or, yeah, or die, fourth commit suicide.

And then regulatory lag, you're starting to see a pullback in

some of the things that you we wouldn't have imagined

being able to be pulled back to within reasonable frames,

you know, of of pursuing. So Yeah. Yeah. I like it how you

mentioned, and we'll get back to the book here in just a moment. But I

like it how you mentioned the Overton window because I think that

and I mentioned this when the Russians invaded the Ukraine. The

Overton window got moved around,

us having open conversations

around the use of nuclear weapons in warfare,

which I can't remember that conversation

ever being in the public space after like

1994 fourth people were going on and on about,

not going on and on, but when there was a lot of,

analysis about whether or not nuclear weapons would be used

in Bosnia. Mhmm. And I do

remember that. And and I haven't heard I had literally not heard

hide or hair about nukes until the Russians

invaded the Ukraine. And now, at an international level,

we have the Iranians escalating with the Israelis,

which while that is

while that has moved the Overton window

towards a conversation of what Israel does next,

it has not moved it towards a conversation of

how soon are the nukes coming to Tel Aviv or Tehran.

And it's interesting to me. Essays in these kinds of

discussions, Overton window is interesting for me too for where it

moves and then where it does not go.

And so I think and I was one of the folks last

year who was saying, we gotta stop talking about nuclear war. We just

do. We gotta stop talking about it. Not to say that by stopping and talking

about it, we're not it's not gonna happen. I'm saying instead,

let's not give that conversation energy, and instead, let's give

conversation energy to something else that's fourth,

productive. Because if you start giving energy to that conversation, it's

gonna grow. And then you will wind up the spots that you

They're priming you for it. They are priming you to expect it,

and the fact that it had been out of the conversation for so long and

then bringing it book, yeah, I I'll go cynic I'll go

skeptical on this. It's because all their other fear tactics aren't working anymore,

and now we're back to, you you know, mutual assured destruction.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. No. Yeah. So there's a

lot of different things that a lot of different threads that run underneath this book

that parallel our time. I know. Yeah. It was

brilliant call to read this book, actually. Yeah.

So, back to the ball. Although all of the classics

seem to parallel this time in some way. Book

interesting how that works, isn't it? As, as Tom

Libby, my other guest co co host says,

the more things change, you know, we all know how the how

that ends. And he's

exactly right. Alright. So back to the book, back to

fathers and sons or fathers and children as it was written in the original

the original Russian by Ivan Turgenev.

Alright. So we're gonna pick up here in, chapter 6, and,

I wanna turn this conversation towards something around,

communication, towards the ideas of communication, particularly

communication at the end of the where we are at at the end of the

enlightenment experience.

So Pavel Petrovich is, Nikolai's

brother, and without going into a

whole lot of background about Pavel, let's just say he's a little more aristocratic

than even his brother, if that's at all possible. And,

and he's questioning Basarov's

life choices here. Is your special study physics?

Pavel Petrovich, in his turn, inquired. Physics, yes,

and natural sciences in general. They say the Teutons of

late have had great success in that line. By the way, pause. Teutons means

German. Back to the book. Yes. The Germans are our teachers

in it, Bazarov answered carelessly. The word

Teutons is in the Jesan, Pavel Petrovich had used with ironical

intention. None noticed it, however.

Have you such a high opinion of the Jesan, said Pavel Petrovich with exaggerated courtesy?

He was beginning to feel a secret irritation. His

aristocratic nature was revolted by Basarov's absolute

the surgeon's son was not only not overawed. He

even gave abrupt and indifferent answers. And in the tone of his voice, there was

something churlish, almost insulate. The scientific men there are

a clever lot. To be sure, a Russian

scientific man, you have not such a flattering opinion, I dare say.

That is very likely. That's very praiseworthy self abnegation, Pavel

Petrovich declared, drawing himself up and throwing his head back. But how is

this? Arkady Nikolaich was telling me just now that you accept

no authorities. Don't you believe in them? And how am

I accepting them? And what am I to believe in? They tell me the truth.

I agree. That's all. And do all Germans tell the truth, said

Pavel Petrovich. His face assumed an expression as unsympathetic

as remote as if he had withdrawn to some cloudy height.

Not all replied Bazarov with a short yawn. He obviously did not care to

continue the discussion. Pavel Petrovich glanced at

our Libby. And as though he would say to him, your friend's polite, I must

say. For my own part, he began again, not without some

effort. I am so unregenerate as to as

not to like Germans. Russian Germans, I am not speaking of now. We all know

what sort of creatures they are, but even German Germans are not to my liking.

In former days, there were some here and there. They had, well, Schiller, to be

sure, Gertha, my brother, he takes a particularly favorable

view of them. But now they have all turned chemists and materialists.

A good chemist is 20 times as useful as any poet, books in

Bazarov. Oh, indeed, commented Pavel Petrovich as

though falling asleep. He faintly raised his eyebrows. You don't acknowledge art

then, I suppose. The art of making money or of advertising

pills? Cried Bazarov with a contemptuous laugh.

You are pleased to Jesan. I see. You reject all that, no doubt.

Granted. Then you believe in science only. I've already

explained to you that I don't believe in anything. And what is science? Science in

the abstract? There are

sciences as there are trades and crafts, but abstract science

doesn't exist at all. Very good. Well and in regards to the other

traditions accepted in human conduct, you maintain the same negative attitude.

What's this, an examination? Asked Bazarov.

Pavel Petrovich turned slightly pale. Nikolai Petrovich thought

it his duty to interpose in the conversation. We will converse on

this subject with you more in detail someday, dear Yevegny Vasovich. We will

hear your views and express our own. For my part, I am heartily glad you

are studying the natural sciences. I have heard that Libby has made some wonderful discoveries

in the amelioration of soils. You could be of assistance to me in my agricultural

labors. You could give me some useful advice.

I'm at your service, Nikolai Petrovich, but Liebig smiles over our

heads. 1 has to first learn the ABC and then begin to read, and we

haven't set our eyes on the alphabet yet. You are certainly a

nihilist. I see that, thought Petro thought Nikolai Petrovich.

Still, you will allow me to apply to you on occasion, he added aloud. And

now I fancy brother. It's time for us to be going to have a talk

with the bailiff. Pavel Petrovich got up from his

seat. Yes, he said without looking at

anyone. It's a misfortune to live 5 years in a country like

this, far from mighty intellects. Fourth turn you

turn into a fool directly. You may try not to forget what you've

been taught, but in a snap, they'll prove all that's rubbish and tell you that

sensible men have nothing more to do with such foolishness and that you, if you

please, are an antiquated old fogey. What's to be done?

Young people, of course, are cleverer than we are.

Pavel Petrovich turned slowly on his heels and slowly walked

away. Nikolai Petrovich went after him.

Is he always like that? Azarov coolly inquired of Arkady

directly that the door had closed behind the 2 brothers. I must say you gave

me. You weren't very nice to him, remarked Arkady. You have hurt his feelings.

Well, I am I going to consider them these provincial aristocrats?

Why it's all vanity, dandy habits, fatuity? He should have

continued his career at Petersburg if that's his bent. But there, enough of

him. I found a rather rare species of water beetle, Disticus

margariatus. Do you know? I will show it to you. I promise

to tell you his story, Jesan Arcady. The story of the beetle?

Come, don't you, Gebni? The story of my uncle. You will see he's not the

sort of man you fancy. He deserves pity rather than ridicule.

Oh, I don't dispute it, but why are you worrying over him? What ought to

be just? How does that follow?

No. Listen. And Arkady told him his uncle's story.

The reader will find it in the following chapter.

That exchange right there between Pavel

Petrovich and Eugene Bazarov

with Arkady and Nikolai watching from

the sidelines is the beginning

of

wrestling with new ideas versus old traditions.

But it's also the beginning of Turgenev

setting the table around

a critical core idea in his book in

fathers and Jesan, and it is this core idea of communication

between generations. So let's start with

this idea of nihilism because how we think of nihilism almost a 100

and what is it, almost a

170 years after the events in

fathers and Jesan, has transformed

from what Hyrgen Yev, might have initially

been proposing. So nihilism at the time,

in the 18 fifties and the 18 sixties was a new theory of the world

that had sprung up from the mind of German intellectuals like Hegel,

he of the Hegelian dialectic, and Nietzsche, he

of the man and Superman.

Russian nihilism was defined at the time as, quote,

the symbol of struggle against all forms of tyranny, hypocrisy,

and artificiality, and for individual freedom.

So nihilism was perceived as a way to tear

down the systems of tyranny, the czarist systems

of tyranny, quite frankly, that were impacting

every single piece of Russian culture all the way from,

the inter the interactions between

people of different classes, the upper class, the middle class, and the

worker, not even the worker, the peasant and the serf class,

all the way to how all of those classes engaged

with the czar and the tsarists' apparatchiks and the

bureaucracy surrounding the tsar.

Now Russian nihilists of the late 19th century, just

like Bazarov, rejected political violence. He actually says

that in the book. He he he rejects, taking

on murder or riotous nature or thievery.

And they rejected political violence or violence with a political

focus as a, quote, unquote, outdated stage of humanity.

They kind of remind me in that way of the new atheists of the

early 20th century or sorry, the early 21st century in the United

States. Christopher Hitchens and Richard

Dawkins and and my friend over there,

Sam, and I'll remember his name in a second

here, Harris. That's right. My buddy, Sam Harris, who, by the

way, all 3 of those guys, not Hitchens, but

Dawkins and Harris, have over the course of

time come around to the idea

that atheist nihilism might not

get you where you need to go in the

west. The Russian

nihilists would eventually

have their ideals hijacked by the Trotskyites, during the

Bolshevik Bolshevik Revolution. The Trotskyites were

in that revolution, centrists,

centrist Bolsheviks, while while Lenin was an

extreme Bolshevik. And so that was sort of the the

makeup of that, coalition that was engaged in

political violence. And Trotsky was more than happy to send his enemies to a

gulag or send them to be shot in a mass

execution. And so and he would do he was more

than willing to do this all the while claiming, that he

believed that he was in a struggle against all forms

of tyranny, hypocrisy, artificiality, and in a

struggle for political and individual freedom.

But Basarov doesn't see any of this yet. Basarov's 20.

By the time the Russian revolution shows up and is completed, if

Bazarov makes it, which he won't, but guys like him never

do. But Bazarov will be at his sixties or seventies.

He'll be a traditionalist by the time the Bolshevik revolution

shows up. But

there's a deeper idea here in this chapter, and it is this idea

of how do generations communicate

and how do generations communicate when the younger

generation is disillusioned with the older generation, disillusioned

with false promises, disillusioned with

unfulfilled potential, judging the

past based on the perfection of the present.

So here's a question for you, Libby. Let's start with this fourth leaders who are

listening to this, leaders across all spectrums.

How can genuine communication occur across generations?

In spite of such delusion disillusionment? And I do think

this is a core question, for our time, particularly in the United

States as we have 4 generations in the workplace right now.

We have baby boomers. We have gen xers. We have millennials, and we have,

we have gen zers. And we've always had 4 generations in the

workplace, so there's always been issues with communication and disillusionment.

But I think those issues become sharper with social media

and the speed with which trends move through our society and

culture, particularly communication trends. So how do we

how do we communicate successfully?

It is a good question

because as you noted, their voice been in multiple

generations, you know, in the workplace together and in civilization

together. What's changed

is the speed

of communication, but more importantly,

the shift in, focus

and direction specifically that the younger generations

can can take. Like, they, it's hard

to focus them. You know, their belief you know, they're not aware

that their belief structure is constantly changing and in flux.

But, yeah, I think

yep. Now I'm in a hurry. Well, this is a tough one because, like,

when you, if we look back at history, you know, in the United States, the

generation that came up with the whole idea of never trust anyone over 30

is the current generation that can't retire. Book

They're also saying, you know, get over it. Trust us. You know? Like

you know? Right. So if you understand human

nature, all you're seeing is that, you know, no one wants

to to be out of power. So when you're feeling powerless,

you're fighting against the power. When you have power, you wanna stay in power.

Yeah. And I think there's more righteousness

on one side than the other. 1 is more, you know, stay off

stay off my book. I'll stay off you don't tread on me, and the other

is, like, do as I say, but as I do,

because I know better. You know, and so we throughout

history and, you know, in society, in general, you have

the nanny state, and you have the don't mess with me state.

And it's a constant movement of

1 going from the bottom to the top. And when you're in the

top, know it. Yeah. Especially, those who love the

power don't wanna relinquish it, and,

and ration and reason don't always work. But where I

was gonna go is

knowing that these trends and cycles are constant,

knowing, recognizing, again, human nature.

We are designed to repel,

those telling us about to act certain ways.

That's why you have youth questioning their parents.

You know, when you learn something new for the first time and you're

new at learning things for the first time, you think everything that you

learn for the first time is the truth and new and absolute. And anyone

who doesn't think the same way as you, is just

not as enlightened. But once you get

more experience and you realize that the less you you have the more you

know, the less you know, you're a bit more,

accommodating of others as they're moving through that natural

life cycle of, like, learning and growing, experiencing

life, idealism into reality.

If you you know, you you are intended Tom like, you're designed to

be idealistic when you're when you're young. Everything is new. You

think everything

and so from my perspective, you

know, I was a brash know it all,

especially in my late teens and, you know, through my

twenties, and I cringe now at some of the things

that I had said to, you know, my elders who

were incredibly smart and accomplished. And now I look at, yeah,

I look at myself, yeah, I I look at myself from their

perspective, and they, you know, they knew who I was

and that I was just going through a stage. Mhmm. You

know? They never got emotional about it. They,

were rational, indulged. They quest yeah. They use the

Socratic method. They provide different,

examples to, you know, plant seeds fourth

me as a youth of different ways to think. But I

think the wrong way of working of having

multi generations think is telling people that they're wrong or they're

stupid, and it's my way or the highway, and it doesn't matter if

you're an elder or a youth. So as

most leaders that inspire, they inspire because you

don't feel judged. You then you you you're

they inspire you because you feel heard. Even

if they don't necessarily agree with you, you feel heard

and that you matter. And so

from where I sit, it's continuing to be, you

know, strong in your principles and convictions.

But as a leader, knowing that

there are maybe things that you don't know and having an open mind,

but also not judging

others for things that are, you know, for things that are different

than, what you believe in and that you actually know to be

true. The

challenge we have is creating

can't believe I'm gonna say this. A safe space for actual work.

And what I mean by that is we just wanna work.

Like, I just wanna make great products. I just wanna

work with a team where we're focused on get GSD

Mhmm. And helping each other Tom be successful. I don't care about

your politics. I don't care about who you're married to and

what you're doing in your bedroom. I don't care if you have a

tattoo or not. You know, what

I don't care who you're voting for. Like, for me, what matters is

who you are in the room. And are you focused

on getting the work done that you committed to? Are you

able to support a team member who may need support?

You know, but helping each other to thrive

around the work we're doing and keeping the noise out of the

system. Now that doesn't mean that I don't care about individuals as

humans. I do. But, you know, there

yeah. Religion, community

service, politics is for outside of work, and we can

discuss that outside of work, or we create specific times and

forms for in work where that's all that you're talking about.

But, you know, just like they did at Coinbase, just like they're

doing at a lot of other, Palantir,

companies that you wanna work for, even Twitter and x. Like, the companies I wanna

work for are the ones that are passionate about the product, and

the people is, you know, are the is the culture and

the teamwork to get the product done.

So let me ask you a question here because this is this is an idea

that some companies have gone

all in on, but the vast majority of

publicly traded companies

still seem to be really

focused on all of this other stuff that's that that's

hooked into workplace culture, but actually erodes

culture, and they don't seem to be as hooked

into the product. So case in point,

I get a lot of one of the parts of our business, we do a

lot of my consultancy. We do a lot of,

bidding on corporate gigs. Right. So we'll

bid for a gig. Right. And I I'm actually

I'm I can actually glance over to my email and see this in my email.

Now I've got a bid that was emailed to me. I'm not gonna bid on

this, but it was emailed to me, by a corporate client with

a name that you would know if I said it. And they are

bidding out, diversity, equity, inclusion, and

belonging training. Now, again, I'm not gonna

go into sort of the benefits of DEI or the drawbacks or any of that.

I'm clear on the record on all of that, my thoughts on all that. You're

a publicly traded company, and you're bidding out this

project. Now on the one hand, you

could say at Libby, as you've already stated, maybe they'll they're

just bidding this out for one specific time, for one specific area that's

in book, and that it won't impact the rest of everything else because they'll be

ridiculously focused on the product. But this company

hasn't been ridiculously focused on its product for a while.

Again, if I said the name of the company, you would know who they are.

They haven't been focused on their other stuff for a while. And And so I

look at all of these sort of I call them side games,

right, that corporations are doing. Yeah.

And the side games get a lot of

fire and smoke and attention in a in a

cycle a media cycle, But all they

do is create distractions with people that just wanna, like you said,

GSD and show up and do the work.

And They're not they're not focused on

actual value creation for their customer.

Right. They're focused on metrics that that matter to a

broader stakeholder group. And quite honestly, you

know, excellence is the exception. It's not the rule. You know,

publicly traded companies, especially those, you know, with

50,000 employees, a 100,000, 250,000,

they're attracting the average and the mediocre.

You know, and so what are the things that they think are

going to attract the average and the mediocre. These aren't

people, as a rule of thumb, who are continuing

to who are looking for careers to thrive and grow,

to contribute, you know, value and get value in

return. For the most part, these are people who just want a

job. Show yeah.

Mhmm. They're they basically work to live, and they don't live to work.

Yeah. So when your company isn't valued

based on the value you deliver to your customer, the value you deliver to

your, partners and your employees,

or it has to appeal to the masses, you're

going to get mass programs

and mass communications. And so this

is why you're seeing a continuation of all those things that on the

surface be good, but you and I

both know our, candy

for yeah. Or or empty calories for the

company. Yeah. I always say, like, HR, for the most part, is a

make work function. Yeah. You

know, there are key elements of it that

turning and development you know, there are things that I think

are important, but I don't think you have to have them in house. They are

Right. Functions that I think you build the capability,

you deliver it, it's embedded in the culture, and you move

on. But when you have a full time function that,

you know, that isn't actively

and directly creating value for your customer

or your partners, you have a make work function.

So Okay. So let me ask you this question then. How much of a But

but but not in a nut shell, it's because they're appealing to the masses.

They're not trying to be exceptional. Okay. They don't need to be

exceptional. They have right they have cash flow that like, why why

do you think the cable companies haven't shifted in, you know, in 25

years? Yeah. Right? Fourth, you're right. Because they don't have to.

Okay. To the masses. So I asked this question on

LinkedIn. Well, I didn't ask it. I sort of did a rant on LinkedIn, and

I got in a whole bunch of trouble. It's fine. I'm used to getting

in trouble. And my

rant basically came down to this. Bring back

the cantankerous disagreeable.

I'm gonna tell you what to do the right way to do it because I'm

competent, but I'm probably not gonna tell you in a way that's gonna make you

feel good leader. Like, bring that, and it is gonna be a guy. Sorry,

ladies. Fourth bring that guy back because that

guy will make sure doors don't fall off the planes of your

product in midair. There are many women like that

too. There are many women like that. Yeah. Bring

back the kind of leader who will

get the bridge in Baltimore up faster than 10

years because it shouldn't take 10 years. Like, you just need one

person who's willing to be disagreeable and just yell at everybody

and tell them to do it right and that we're gonna be here 25 years

until you do it right, or we could be here 10 minutes. Do it right.

Yeah. I don't know that it I Well, well, the reason why it's disagreeable,

but it's not compromising on the things that matter.

Okay. Well, not compromising these days seems like being disagreeable.

Because people yeah. Yeah. Because we're in this make work

because and I'm drawing We're in we're in this make work feel good. Give me

a dopamine give me a dopamine hit world. Right. You know? And

I can also say that these startups are also

appealing to the average because these startups are

funded by VCs. They have no accountability,

other than exiting. And when there's a ton of money,

chasing noneconomic entities, they can do a lot of stupid

stuff that doesn't actually deliver deliver any value.

So what you like, so the reason you're seeing this stuff continue

is because there's no accountability Libby. Like, the businesses are

gonna continue to be going concerns because they're either funded

by, legacy cash flows and brand

or by VCs that are funding them, and they don't actually have to produce

positive cash flow. The only reason you can produce positive cash flow is

because you actually have products that people love, partnerships that

people value, and employees committed to your company. But are we to a point

where we have to be have to be. Are we to a point

where the the the only way out we were just talking about this

before we started. The only way out is through. And

and the way to get through sort of the mediocrity and the

lack of focus on product and and and the lack of

accountability. The only way through and I'm asked this as a challenge question to you

because I'm I'm I don't know what the answer is myself,

but I know what I want the answer to be based on my temperament. So

but that's not true. Right? It's just based on my temperament. Right? Like, is the

only way through to find that unlikable

person, man or woman? I don't care. Find that unlikable person and give them the

Tom, or or or do we need to find

a way is there a third way Tom paraphrase from Bill

Clinton? Is there? The likability is, like, overrated.

Like, I like you know, likability isn't

what you what you need to run a a business. It

might be nice to be light, but there's there's a difference between

being respected and being hated or disliked.

Right. Disliked, like, yo, to me,

respected is I'm telling you what our decision criteria

is. I'm telling you where we're heading. I'm telling you why we're not

investing in these functions. And I'm giving you kind of

our like, likability is emotional driven. Respect

is rationally driven. We need more rational

leaders, who can share things

from a rational basis. And

right now, you just have too many like, apologizing,

because someone's feelings are hurt. Well, I'm sorry you interpreted it something

differently than I intended it, but you need to take accountability for what

you're feeling. I'm gonna check my intentions, but

my intentions, I know my intentions. I'm not gonna apologize for how

you receive them because you have had a different experience that

interprets my actions one way that was not actually

real. So the only way through, yes, is just like

Elon did. I'm sorry. Elon did it. He didn't apologize.

He fired 80% of the staff because the staff was noise.

They weren't actually creating value. When you focus on what you

need you just need to build and deliver an amazing experience, look at the

innovation that has happened at x in the last, like, year. It's

insane. Look at the innovation that happened at Zoom in the last

year. 0. Right. You know, one

company is focused on being liked and probably has

20,000 employees that are talking about politics

or, you know, lots of other stuff we don't care

about during the work day, and the other one is turning to

get us done. So the the biggest the biggest example right

now of what you're talking about is Google. I I mean, just I know.

Right. Like, that's the biggest example right now. About it today. Right. Yeah. Right. Right.

Right. Like, Google Gemini and that entire disastrous rollout and all that. Okay.

So my follow-up question to that is this,

because I'm not I don't know what the answer is. This is why I'm asking.

Writers. Will younger generations

who have been communicated with differently?

Risk and by the way, have different expectations of communication

still follow that sort of leader

or not even follow will listen and be appreciative of the

communication style of someone fourth whom likability is

on like number 10 of their list of the top 10 things they have to

be. And effectiveness is number 1 or maybe number 2. Whatever. Whatever is

number 1. Number 2, it's not likability. Our younger generations,

because this is the challenge question for all of us out here, not just

publicly traded, but small, medium sized businesses all the way up and down because the

cancer is everywhere. I have conversations with folks all the time. The

cancer is everywhere. Okay? In all of our business

sectors, all of our economic sectors. It is. Yeah. It's even in our families. I

mean, it's everywhere. Right? Yeah. It is. And so will

younger generations follow that person if that person sets

those expectations correctly, or will they rebel?

From where I say it, it yeah. It's the exception. It you know?

If you're looking for excellence, if you're looking for,

working in a, you know, in an empowered way, if you're

focused on in a challenging

experience that you get excited about, you are going to

work for that effective leader and not just the nice leader. We

have all worked with nice leaders. They're like, I'm gonna I'm gonna

quit. I don't care how nice you are if you're actually not removing the

barriers to my success. Mhmm. Like, I you know, at the

end of the day, I'm at work. I don't wanna have to jump over, you

know, 30 bad processes and redundant work

and people not doing their job because you're not doing your job

as a leader. I don't care how nice you are. You might be the nicest

thing on the planet, but if you're not helping me to be effective in my

role, I'm moving on to the next, you know, the next role

and the the next leader. So I always talk

about this outside in kind of transformation. Google is

lost. You have 200,000 employees, one of the largest

publicly traded companies around, and all they do is search.

You know? Like, what was the last innovation that they did that you were excited

about? 0. They're only about search and then

talking in their Slack channels about politics and gender

ideology. You know, that's an example of

where cash flow is allowing them to not be accountable to

their shareholders for new innovation and great ideas.

But, yeah, do you need to be loud and vocal, or do you just

set the example and attract like like,

you know, attract bees to honey? Like, you can find that there

are lots of incredible there's lots of incredible

talent who actually wants to have their potential

unleashed, who doesn't wanna talk about BS, that

actually wants to do great things. They just haven't seen

it. So show it to them. And, you know, they'll

start talking to others, and others will want to be a part of your organization.

I would I actually would love to do more, research on Coinbase to see what's

happening there. I'd like to do more around Palantir and

then, what Lucky Palmer's company is. Mhmm.

Like, I'd really like to see what they're getting

with respect to employee feedback Mhmm.

You know, and employee engagement. You book? Because those are companies

where you have strong

leaders who also have strong teams

working within their businesses. I wanna see how satisfied those

employees are because those guys are gonna be the

examples, at least Palantir and Coinbase, around trying to live by

your principles and focusing on delivering great product. The same

would be for Twitter and not, and not,

you know, Glassdoor, you know, free

Elon, but, you know, maybe the last 6 months, you know, where you have

engineers who are actually able to deliver and continue to deliver new features and

functionality. Yeah. So the only way is through.

I think the biggest risk that we run, though, is,

is that the momentum from the rate is

not good enough to offset

the cancer that is everywhere. Yeah.

K. Back to the book.

We're rounding it. We gotta round our corner here. We take it a lot in

the business time. We gotta round the corner here. We gotta we gotta wrap

this sucker up. We gotta bring this home. So let's

get back to the book, back to fathers and sons.

By the way, you can pick up, Turgenev.

It is an open fourth, book now. So it's

published in a wide variety of different formats. You can get it

online, as well, from

any major or minor publisher. So I'd encourage you to go out and

pick up a copy of fathers and sons.

Back to the book. We're gonna pick up in chapter

8, with with

Nikolai Petrovich's, new mistress,

Finichka. Nikolai Petrovich had made Finichka's

acquaintance in the following manner. He had once happened 3 years before to stay

a night at an inn in a remote district town. He was agreeably struck

by the cleanliness of the room assigned to him, the freshest of the bed linen.

Surely, the woman of the house must be a German was the idea that

occurred to him, but she proved to be a Russian, a woman of about 50

neatly dressed of of a good looking sensible countenance and discreet

speech. He entered the conversation with her at tea. He liked her

very much. Nikolai Petrovich had, at the time, only just moved into his

new home. And not wishing to keep serfs in the house, he was on the

lookout for wage servants. The woman of the inn on

her side complained with the small number of visitors to the town and the hard

times. He proposed to her to come into his house in the capacity of a

housekeeper. She consented. Her husband had long been

dead, leaving her and only daughter, Fenichka. Within a fortnight,

Arina, Savishna, that was the new housekeeper's name,

arrived with her daughter at Merino and installed herself in the little

lodge. Nikolai Petrovich's choice

proved a successful one. Irina brought order to the household. As for

Panitchka, who was at that time 17, no one spoke of her and

scarcely anyone saw her. She lived quietly and sedately, and only on

Sundays, Nikolai Petrovich noticed, in the church, somewhere

in a side placed the delicate profile of her white face

More than a year passed thus. 1 morning, Irina came

into a study and bowing what was usual. She asked him if he could do

anything for her daughter, who'd got a spark from the stove in her

eye. Nikolai Petrovich, like all stay at home people, had studied

doctoring and even compiled a homeopathic guide. He at once told Irina to

bring the patient to him. Fenichka was much frightened when she heard the master

had sent for her. However, she followed her mother. Nikolai Petrovich led her

to the window and took her head in his two hands. After thoroughly

examining her red and swollen eye, he preside a he prescribed a fomentation,

which he made up himself at once and tearing his handkerchief to pieces. He showed

her how it ought to be applied. The finished go Jesan to all he had

to say and then was going. Kiss the master's hand,

silly girl, or said arena. And Nikolai

Petrovich did not give her his hand and in confusion himself, kissed her bent

head on the parting of her hair. Benyushka's

eye was Sorrells again, but the impression she had made on Nikolai Petrovich did not

pass away so quickly. He was forever haunted by that pure, delicate,

timidly raised face. He felt on the palms of his hands that soft hair and

saw those innocent slightly parted lips through which pearly teeth gleamed with moist

brilliance in the sunshine. He began to watch her with great attention in

church and tried to get into conversation with her. At first, she was shy of

him, and one day, meeting him at the approach of evening in a narrow footpath

through a field of rye, she ran into the tall thick rye overgrown with

cornflowers and wormwood so as not to meet him face to face.

He caught sight of her little head fourth golden network of ears of rye fourth

which she was peeping out like a small little animal and called affectionately to

her, good evening, I don't bite. Good evening, she

whispered, not coming out of her ambush. By degrees,

she began to be more at home with him but would still shine his presence.

But suddenly her mother, Irina, died of cholera.

What was to become of Faniqa? She inherited from her mother

a love for order, regularity, and respectability, But she was

so young, so alone. Nikolai Petrovich was himself so good and

considerate. It's needless to relate

the rest.

This is one of those, moments in a in a book,

in a Russian novel. Russian novelists in general have this little twitch that they

do where they Dostoevsky did it. Tolstoy did it. I mean,

it's all of a war and peace is about. My gosh. And, and Turgenev.

Even even Nabokov, we're we're readers. We're trying to get through and

read Lolita. Had tried to pull some interesting things from Lolita. That's a

fascinating little little book there. But

every single one of these Russian writers is consumed with the

idea of how relationships develop between men and women,

in particular, how relationships develop between men and women of different social

classes and across different ages.

Now it's interesting. As I was reading this book, I I also, the other day,

watched a movie fourth watched a television show from the 19 seventies where

this, this older man was having an affair with his younger secretary and

my 13 year old daughter getting ready to be fourth, happened to be in the

room where we're watching the show, And she was like, and it's the 1970s.

This is the Rockford files actually. And my daughter goes, oh, he's so old.

It's like, yeah, well you're 14. That's the correct, that's the correct response. Thank you.

You're right. You're exactly right. He is so old.

But I said, they're only separated by like, this is the seventies. They're only separated

by like 20 years. It's fine. She's in her twenties. He's in his fifties or

thirties or whatever, or forties. It's fine. She even and and she still looked

at me. She gave me the side look with the sneer that only a 14

year old girl can give her father. It's

fine. It's whatever. But it puts me in mind

of what I was just reading there in this book.

And Nikolai is attempting to be

a moral man in a culture where

the morality of connection

and of interpersonal

sexual behavior between people of different classes

and between people of different ages is strictly

bounded. And one of the interesting things about finishka

is when our Katie, who is closer to

Panitchka's age, and Nikolai's son, when Arkady

and, Bazarov turning to the property,

has a little baby boy. And,

of course, because it's Russian, everyone's very discreet about such

things, but everybody knows what is happening.

This, of course, creates tension between Arkady and Bazarov.

And, Arcadia basically says my

father has a right to be happy, and Bazarov

also says that your father has a right to be

happy, but they're coming from different perspectives on this. Bazarov is coming from a

nihilistic perspective. Arkady is coming from a perspective that's

way more personal, way more individualized to what he

knows about his father.

The challenge that Turgenev presents to us in this

part of fathers and sons and further on in the book is

the challenge of whether or not such morality should impact state policy.

Do we really need to, and we, by the way, we've done this in our

own country. We've scaled up in people's individualized experiences to the

level of state policy that is currently what is happening with

the, transgender, contra Tom. And

I don't call it a movement. I call it a contra Trump. We're taking

people's individual collect individual experience, and we're scaling it

largely to a collective, interestingly enough, involving

children. And

in an attempt to as we did the 19 fifties 19 sixties in

America Tom enfranchise those on the fringes, We

moved to the edges closer to the center, but what we didn't realize was that

the fringe that's way out there now becomes closer

to the center. This happens in cross generational

transitions and this occurs, fourth this is a danger

that can occur. And I think this is what Arkady is really focused

on. Not Pavel, not Bazar. Tom, I think he senses it, but doesn't know how

to say it in the book. The danger of scaling

the individual experience to the collective is that you will lose the

morality that the collective has relied upon all of

this time. And, of course, Basarov doesn't see it as being

a problem. We've

talked about cross generational wisdom a little bit on some of this,

Libby.

Maybe just some brief comments on how we practically kinda get through this

moment. And I think it is I think it's different in in America because it's

it's a moment by moment sort of thing, with us

as I think it is in all countries. I do think that because the

messaging and the speed of the messaging has increased, we don't have we don't have

5 years to think about something now. We don't have 2 years to think about

something now. Now we have to make a decision, a split second decision about

someone doing something on TikTok in about 10

seconds before we can like scroll to the next thing. Right. We're not being given

time to think. I think that's on purpose, but putting that aside,

how do we transition that

wisdom that knows he has, but doesn't know how

to articulate? And I think a lot of people know they have it. They do,

but they don't know how to get that across to to

people who are trying to scale up their individualized experience to collective

state policy?

It's that question as old as time. Right? It is a

question as old as time. Yeah. I mean, for forget it. We we covered this

in the Republic of Plato. So, yes, it's it's as old as time. Yeah. Yeah.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I I really like the Socratic method around this.

And, specifically, I'm turning to remember

this author's name. I can't think of it. I think can't think of her name

right now. She's kind of in the woo woo space,

But she asks yeah. She has fourth core

questions that she asks when she has

a response, you know, yeah, positive or negative

towards something she's seen or observing. And it's like

questions like, how do I know this to be true? Why do I believe this

to be true? What would the world look like if it wasn't

true? So it recognizes that our belief systems

are based on our experience overlaid by, you know,

thoughts and narratives from others, And that reality

our belief structure system is actually relative to

only our experience. So if we start to actually

ask why we believe something and why we might be

hesitant to not believe something different. Book.

Because who would I be if I believe something different? My tribe might not like

me anymore, or, I might have to reexamine

so much so much more about the

world if, you know, if what I believe is not no longer

true. Yeah. So

framing by asking the youth the things they

know, and, yeah, in those fourth

questions, can help them.

It just creates a thought process and plant seeds for them

to question what they know and to maybe be more open,

as they experience life or take in information,

to maybe think differently. So what we see as

a natural progression already from young to old for the most

part, is they go from idealist

idealist to pragmatists, and hopefully don't lose

their lust for life and become cynical in that process, but actually

enjoy life more, as they become

practical and, you know, and see

how much more they have to learn. Yeah. I think if we just

open someone's aperture, like, you allow

that movement into maturity so much

faster. Does that make sense? Yeah. That makes

sense. And

it sort of answers the question as we sort of round the corner here. Where

do we go from here? Right? Right. Like, opening that aperture of

experience, opening that

back in the sixties, they called it the age of Aquarius. Right? You know, we're

gonna have a new a new consciousness raising, right, a new understanding.

No one's turning about language. No one's talking a language like that now.

Matter of fact, the the recent solar eclipse that we had in North America, I

told my, my 7 year old that his 3rd eye was gonna open, and he

was running around telling other people that. And, my wife was

like, you probably need to stop talking to

him. Yes. Yeah. Well, I do some things to

amuse myself with my children. Anyway, but my

point is that that that

opening of the aperture, that understanding. Right?

I I think it has to operate on so many different levels that it befuddles

us. And so I think at certain points in

Tom, particularly in American culture, we can only focus on one level at

once. Like, right now, we're hyper focused on the technological level. We think

that if we just open up our aperture around all these technologies,

then then enlightenment, for one of a better

word, will will will appear.

But there's always a poverty that's attached to that.

Right? Because the enlightenment has to happen in a bunch of different

places. It can't just you can't just have your

your perceptions expanded in one

spot. That's too narrow. You've gotta have

your ex your your your your your perceptions expanded in

your communication, in your, in

your finances, in your spirituality, in your technology. Like,

it's all books all these things come together in in who you are, right, as

a leader, but also who you are as a follower? Well, I

think the the one thing I do know for sure is that

telling people that there's only one way Yeah. Or my

way is the fastest path to people

shutting down. Correct. So people will change

when they are ready to change. And, like,

you know, first is helping yeah. We talk about the change curve a lot

in transform yeah, in enterprise transformation, but it's also

in in personal transformation is, like, first, you have an

awareness of something, and then you,

like, maybe seek deeper understanding of it. And then you

have knowledge, and then you have mastery. But what our goal is

is to just help build awareness.

And you do you can help build awareness through

questioning and maybe sharing, you know, ideas

and sources. But, yeah, by

telling people that they don't

know what's in their best interest and you know better Right.

You'll shut people down to discovery.

You also shut yourself down to discovery

because the other thing that I know for sure is that we don't know anything

for sure. Well, that's and that

is that's where leadership Yeah. And, fundamentally, this is a

leadership podcast, so we covered a lot of different areas today. And thank you

for listening. And leadership

takes all of that that you've talked about and

then transmits that because that's all called wisdom,

transmits that through coaching, through communication, through

mentoring, through creating succession plans.

And here's another way. Actually leaving when you say you're going to

leave. Mhmm. Right. Right.

Do what you say. Do what you say you're going to do.

And these

are areas that we struggle with, but I'm starting to see people

saying things like the future is bright,

or I have optimism. And they're

looking at some of the same things that you and I are looking at, and

they're drawing different conclusions.

But I think that that wisdom transfer

that I don't know what I don't know is probably

the humility that needs to be at the core of all leadership communication

cross generationally. I would agree, and that's where the power of

story comes into. It is, like, how did you get, like

so sharing like, so share my experience of how I got

to Right. Believe the thing that I believe Yep.

Currently. And Yeah. And also share that

if in 10 years from now, I'm not questioning everything I believe now, then

I haven't learned and grown. Right. But by sharing the

journey, you can you can share with people the thought processes and

experiences that, at some point, they may be able to mirror

or relate to that can help them, like, you know,

with their own journey. But it

gives, like, treat I, 1, treat people as

adults. Yeah.

You know, 2, provide kind of readers to

support you why you believe what you believe.

Mhmm. Help yeah. Like, for me, it's also

about being you know, it's about coaching, but it's like showing as

well. So I don't ask anyone to do

what I won't do myself, and I'll sit

side by side with folks to help them, you know, to

learn or understand something.

But I wanna go back to, you know, the other

strengthening your adherence to your principles and not compromising

on your principles. Mhmm. So, you know,

from a leadership perspective, the how may I may not care as

much about the principles to have

a have a how element to it True. But not

compromising on quality. Right. Right. So outcomes.

Right? And I do care about how we get to those outcomes. Right? Like,

I I don't want a person with poor values

who's walking all over the team, you know, getting to

the out you know, to, like, a tangible outcome. You know? So I

have principles about how we work together, holding each other accountable,

integrity, collaboration.

I also have principles around quality standards and not

lowering them because they're hard. You know? Like,

figure out, like, that the challenge and the

excitement is around actually

achieving hard goals and objectives. Yeah. But

giving people space

to actually use their own brain and to

create to get there. So, you

know, leadership is about balancing the principles

Mhmm. With the how. And

people there's a

lack of soul and, excitement when

you're told how to do everything. If you understand

where you're going and the why, and you're given some

Yeah. Yeah. The whole goal is to allow

people to feel empowered, allow people to create,

but not giving them so much rope that they can hang

themselves and fourth provide you know, create risk for

the for the company. For the company. So Yeah.

So the disagreeableness is only around radical candor.

It's only about questioning, but not holding,

but not giving up on your principles. And too

many leaders we've seen have given up on their principles

in order to stay in power, in order to be liked.

And when you do that, you're losing your soul.

But that yeah. But, effectively, to be a good leader, it's the power of the

question. Yeah. You know? It's the power of the question. It's the power

of the story, and it's belief in the individual

to be able to, you know, take on big challenges and

succeed. I think Turgenev would,

or Turgenev would agree. So I would

encourage you to pick up a copy of fathers and sons.

Take a look at Tom, mark it up, read it, contextualize

it for our time now. I'd

like to thank Libby Younger for coming on the Leadership

Lessons fourth the Great Books podcast today. And with that,

we're out.