Lead With That: Condoleezza Rice and the Importance of Values in Leadership

Interview Transcript

Intro:

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

Ren:

It’s Manager Madness still. Can you even believe it? Yes, Allison. One by one, we’re still discussing public figures, real or fictional, randomly pitted against one another to see who comes out on top.

We’ve got a real figure today. Condoleezza Rice, a woman whose name is, for some, synonymous with resilience, intelligence, and groundbreaking leadership. Before Condi was making waves on the global stage, she was a standout academic and an accomplished musician, no less. Growing up in the segregated South, she broke barriers with every step, from becoming a piano prodigy to earning a PhD in political science. At Stanford, she didn’t just wear the professor hat, she took on the role of provost, where she transformed the university’s budget from red to black, showing early on her knack for leadership and problem solving that she used in the government.

Fast-forward to her tenure as the US Secretary of State, where Rice was a trailblazer as the first African-American woman to hold the position. Whether it was navigating complexities of post 9/11 foreign policy or standing firm in the face of global crises, Rice’s tenure was marked by her unflinching resolve and sharp diplomatic acumen. She played a critical role in shaping US international relations with a style that combines strength with a touch of Southern charm, some say.

Since leaving office though, Condoleezza Rice hasn’t slowed down one bit. She’s back at Stanford, this time sharing her wealth of knowledge as a professor and Co-Director of the Hoover Institution. She’s also an author, a board member for several major corporations, and a sought-after speaker. Rice continues to inspire with her words and actions, proving that true leadership is not just about the titles you hold but, maybe even more, the legacy you leave behind.

Welcome back everyone. I’m Ren Washington, and as usual, I’m joined with Allison Barr. Allison, what’s Condoleezza Rice’s legacy to you?

Allison:

Oh, I didn’t expect that question. You’ve mentioned a lot of what she’s done as a professional and as a person. When I think of her, I think of overcoming hurdles. More specifically, seeing those hurdles as an opportunity to potentially change something that’s not working. Although her history and her path is remarkable in so many ways that you’ve just mentioned, her legacy to me is also her well-roundedness and her various skillsets. I think if I had to pick one out of everything I just said, it might be her ability to influence. What about you? What would you say?

Ren:

Well, this might come as no surprise to you, but really Condoleezza Rice’s legacy, for me, is, like, neo-imperialism. I too, Condi, was a political science major, and I wrote about you and your administration as my capstone project.

Allison:

Nobody is going to be surprised that you were a political science … Nobody ever will be surprised that you’re that. That does not surprise me at all. Apologies, keep going.

Ren:

No, not at all. Whether for good or for ill … The more I explored Condoleezza, the more I started to recognize that there’s nuance, as there is in every human. For me, she was the Secretary of State of the Bush Administration post 9/11, and I talked about Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Bush living out the legacy of New American imperialism.

For me, as a child who watched … I was in ninth grade, I was a freshman in high school when I saw the towers fall. I remember sitting in the Student Union watching Bush win another election. She’s wrapped up in kind of my feelings about that part of our history. So I’d say her legacy for me is the Secretary of State for a neo-imperialist presidency. But what a limiting perspective on her, I think, because she’s so much more than that.

Allison:

Agree. I think it’s interesting, too, to have college memories where you’re learning about her, and now being, of course, not in school anymore and having that perspective change a little bit, I would assume. I think there’s so many things that stand out to me. So let me clarify that it’s very hard for me to choose one thing to focus on for this podcast, because of her depth and knowledge and her experience and her skills and everything that you’ve already mentioned.

When I thought about trends, and when I was reading about her last week, her ability to influence and gain alignment from folks all over the globe is standout. And let me just clarify. My caveat here is that I am not necessarily supporting or not supporting any political decisions, just making sure that that is known. Rather, highlighting that she’s worked to gain alignment globally from organizations like the United Nations Security Council, North Korea, European foreign ministers, et cetera.

Now, I can’t speak directly to how she did that. We weren’t behind closed doors, though I wish I was. However, I have some suspicions, and I think her education in international relations, along with her experience, certainly helps.

When we do these leader profiles and think about Manager Madness, I always like to think about some of the things that our leaders could translate directly to the workplace. I would imagine most people who are listening are not trying to influence North Korea at the moment, rather, maybe their boss or a team at the workplace.

I think there’s an easy translation to make, but I’ll pause. What are your thoughts, reactions?

Ren:

Well, I’ll chase that rabbit, and I couldn’t agree more around some of her accessible ideas, whether it’s piano, whether it’s PhD, whether it’s provost. None of her stuff happened by accident. If you’re listening and you’re working hard, the idea is just keep sharpening those saws, because greatness is not accidental.

And … maybe you don’t want greatness. I think Condi or someone did, and I’m interested to talk about life philosophy with her. Surprise, surprise. I think there’s a lot about her characteristics that you could point to and say, “Well, there’s drive.” I don’t know if you’d ever make it to the Secretary of State without drive.

Well, if you had to work for her, if Condoleezza Rice was your boss, you can pick whatever timeframe in history, now at Stanford or during the presidency, whether she was Secretary of State or provost or professor. What would you be excited about if you had to work for her, and what would you be worried about?

Allison:

I would like to say that I would love to be a student of hers. That’s not what you asked me. But she did teach at some point. She might still be. I’m actually not sure if she is still. I would love to be a student of hers. Let me answer your question, though. If I had to work for her, I do want to clarify that I would not choose to work in politics. For the sake of this conversation, we’re going to pretend that this is not a political career. Perhaps I work for her at the —

Ren:

At Stanford.

Allison:

At Stanford, at the collegiate setting. I would be thrilled to work for her because of everything that we’ve already mentioned. She entered the University of Denver at age 15 — 15 years old. That’s just one thing we haven’t mentioned yet. I cannot help but think that, just given her knowledge and her experience, I think I would learn something from her in every single conversation. So I would be thrilled to work for her.

What would concern me? I’m not really sure, Ren. I am actually not really sure. There will be something. Maybe as we go, I might come up with something, but I’m not sure in this moment. What about you?

Ren:

The level of neuroticism that comes with a 15-year-old freshman, and then that perpetuates through that person’s life, that would worry me. Like I said, nothing happens by accident. We always talk shadow side and power, and a strength overplayed can turn into a shadow. I just have to imagine at least some point in her life where that drive was hard to be around. I imagine she can probably access it now.

I think what I’d be most excited about is, and some of the things that … I have a few quotes from her as we go on, is her life of experience. I find these people in these high reaches of power or wisdom, they get out of them and they have a lot of perspective. I think their point of view softens. Now, granted, they worked harder than anyone to get to the top of the mountain. Now that they’re there, they look down, they go, “Huh. Was it all worth it?”

I bet it’d be really fun to hear her reflect on her whole arc and think about the perspective she could share with the students that she works with or people like that. I think that’d be pretty cool. Yeah, I’d be worried that Type-A personalities, they are not always easy to be around.

Allison:

Why?

Ren:

Well, I’ll give you an example. Condoleezza Rice said once before, “The most important trait of a good leader is to be operating out of some core values. If you’re not operating from some sense of what is truly right and wrong and what is a matter of principle, then you’ll be constantly buffeted by the events and winds you find yourself in.” Now, Allison, I wonder whose right and wrong. Type As, they’re like, “Nope, this is the right way and this is the wrong way.” And there is little breadth for them.

When I think about Condoleezza Rice, when I think about her legacy, and my legacy of neo-imperialism that I put on her, I think right or wrong came at the expense of a lot of things.

Allison:

Yes. I am going to stay on the philosophical track, too.

Ren:

Let’s do it.

Allison:

There are 2 questions I have. I think the first one is, let’s stick with her political career. Do you think … This just is a genuine question, I’m not trying to target this question. This is genuine. Do you think that there’s a difference, or more of an importance, as a political leader to lead from values than there would be at an organizational level that’s non-political?

Ren:

It depends on the organization. There are non-governmental actors right now, organizations that dictate the flow of the world.

You think of Rupert Murdoch, he controls news outlets all over the world. His narrative is persistent. I think it would depend on the org. From a governmental standpoint, she also said, “Great powers don’t mind their own business. They shape the future.” That’s something that she said in 2024, this year, at the Drell Lecture, just an annual event about international security. At a security event, I guess you would have to be definitive on what great powers do.

But that point of view means that “Great powers don’t mind their own business. They shape the future.” The future in whose image? It’s not, like, America’s image. No, it’s in the image of the few people making the decisions. Again, it goes back to, like, their right or wrong. I need leaders to lead with values. If you’re listening, you have to lead with values. You’ve also got to lead with the real awareness that some people’s values aren’t your values; therefore, your values aren’t any more right than theirs.

Allison:

How do you know if somebody is leading from values or not?

Ren:

Presumably if someone’s saying, “This is right and this is wrong.” I think definitively for Condoleezza Rice, I think her values are on her sleeve, but I guess most realistically, you ask people or you do an exercise. You share the things that you care about and then you try to listen for the things they care about.

Allison:

Can I be so bold as to ask what are some of your values?

Ren:

Yeah, my —

Allison:

Maybe like 1 or 2?

Ren:

Yeah, absolutely. Love it. We do values exercises all the time at home for us. It’s fun. We just did it with the kids recently, and it’s really informed the way that they engage with one another. For me, my top 2 values are autonomy and help others.

Allison:

What was the first one, did you say?

Ren:

Autonomy.

Allison:

I thought you said the economy. Okay.

Ren:

I really value materialism, Allison.

Allison:

You said, okay, so autonomy and service to others?

Ren:

Yeah, to help others.

Allison:

Okay, got it. Got it. Well, I can see a direct tie in those 2 things for how you show up at work. I’m just curious, too … this is top of mind for me because I didn’t know we were going to go down this route in this recording today, and I was reading a Forbes article on Friday about how to find great candidates. And one of the things that was said, and I’m paraphrasing, was to find candidates who have values that are similar to your organization’s values. I challenge that a little bit, and I’m curious what your thoughts are.

Ren:

Well, tell me more maybe and then I’ll share. Where’s the point of challenge?

Allison:

There are a couple places. In an interview … You can be very skilled at interviewing. That is a skill. And if Candidate A knows that the company is looking for values-led people who are in congruence with the company’s values, all that candidate needs to do is Google the values and just say, “Yes, I have these values. Here are some examples.” That’s pretty easy. The second part is, values are not easy to measure either. If you and I both have a value of, let’s say, belonging — I’m making this up, maybe we do, I don’t know — you and I could express that very differently.

To me it just becomes this game of … it’s non-tangible. It’s nice. It’s a nice thing to say, and part of me thinks that it’s almost impossible to measure, and how an organization expresses its values behaviorally generally will start from the top and then, again generally speaking, people will mimic those behaviors to keep their jobs.

Ren:

Yeah, there’s a couple of layers. I think we’ve said it before, what if real organizations were honest, and the first mission statement was “Make money,” the values statement. I think you’re right. I look at an organization often and their values are painted on the wall. And then I look at their senior leaders, I’m like, where do I see those? Then I too, I guess I hear your issue of someone pretending that a company’s values are theirs, or how can you determine it?

A word that kept coming up for me is this idea of congruency, like a value-based question. If I ask you, as a candidate, what you value, whether or not you say you value what we value, I am interested to see if you can live up to the things that you say you value.

We work with, equine facilitators is what I call them, our teaching horse team. I’m not talking about the people, I’m talking about the horses. Something about horses is, horses don’t care if you’re scared. They don’t care if you’re nervous. They don’t care if you’re anxious. They just care if you’re pretending not to be. A horse is disinterested in you being not yourself.

I think that’s probably what’s coming up for me is … I would love for your values to truly align with the organization’s values, especially if our value is to help people. But you only want to help yourself. That’s awfully binary, but that would matter. I think the bigger thing for me, maybe, is I ask you what you value, and then I see if you show up that way.

You said autonomy and helping others, and you’re like, “Yeah, that weighs out, the way you show up at work.” If I said that, but I’m like, I’m always needing to be in decision-making processes or be involved, and I’m never interested in helping others, you would say, “Well, that’s incongruent.” I think that’s probably where I land.

Allison:

Yes. We don’t have to belabor it, but I wouldn’t even know if I would care. I also don’t manage you, so that might be different too. I don’t know if I care. I don’t know. It’s not that I don’t care about your values, that’s not what I mean. I don’t care if you’re incongruent, because you’re human and your values are going to change probably a lot over time. Maybe they won’t. Depends on the human.

Anyway, I feel like I’ve led us down a path of splitting hairs. I don’t even know how much this matters, necessarily, but I think it’s just becomes a little tricky at the workplace to over-focus on values, I guess is my point. If you were incongruent with your values, okay. You know what I mean? I am not going to be like, “Ren, you said you valued autonomy and now you want to make this decision.” I don’t know that I care.

Ren:

Well, that’d be interesting. There are some incongruences that can harm team production.

Allison:

How’s that?

Ren:

You say you’re going to do something, but you behave differently. I might want to seek out in a true SBI format like, “This was the situation, this behavior, it impacted me negatively. Can you help me understand what’s happening?”

I think I hear from you saying, it’s like, I don’t really care if you say you value one thing and then your values shift. I think I’m talking about, and I think this is germane to our conversation around Condoleezza Rice, her legacy around anyone in a high-profile leadership position, is that scrutiny is going to be high on you and therefore the possibility of hypocrisy is larger than ever.

Allison:

Yes.

Ren:

I think there are certain things that go, but you said yes, like yes. So tell me, what are you thinking about?

Allison:

She’s spoken a lot about having respect for everyone’s contribution. And this comes full circle to what you said, in a way, because she has a quote that I’m going to paraphrase. She said that a solid leader needs to trust that the next person is doing their job, and have an honest dialogue with them or amongst colleagues. A direct quote of hers, if they aren’t doing that — rather, a direct quote is, “The first thing that can break a team apart more quickly than anything else is when people are constantly whispering about one another or taking down somebody behind their back and not having direct conversations amongst colleagues.”

Which plays into what you were just saying as well. There’s something around integrity and being bold enough, brave enough to have direct conversations with people so that you can value everyone’s contribution and elevate the whole team.

Ren:

I think too, some of what you’re talking about highlights that the polarity of all of our humanity where she speaks … I think there’s a lot of truth to the idea of, whispering behind each other’s back is going to tear down a team. But I believe Condoleezza Rice believes in the idea of a shared vision, which goes back to my earlier idea of right or wrong. I think a lot of people who have such a definitive point of right or wrong, only let those people into the tent who believe with them, and therefore they are walking in lockstep because what’s to whisper about?

The challenge is having a cabinet of rivals, like Abraham Lincoln did, the last president ever to have a cabinet full of bipartisan members … maybe not the last president. But this idea that … could differing perspectives make us better? An so, as a teamer, and we were talking about values, or we talk about maybe aligning with values or incongruency, I think what might contribute to a team’s under-performance is people pretending they care about the same thing and then whispering about how they don’t.

That’s one of the instances that the congruency can actually matter or incongruency can matter.

Allison:

Definitely. Definitely. If you’re new to this, how might you begin to foster an environment where people can have differing opinions like that and bring them to the table? It’s a little gray, because I would argue that sometimes there’s a time and a place to bring your devil’s advocate — not you, Ren, I mean the general. If you’re playing devil’s advocate, that’s one thing. If your purpose is to support the conversation and bringing a different perspective, that’s another thing. How do we generate an environment where people can do that second thing?

Ren:

Reward the behavior. Incentivize it. And maybe you reduce the frame of the right or wrong. The less binary we can be, I think, the better. Then if someone offers a point of view … or maybe, like you said, you’re like, “Hey, if you’re playing devil’s advocate all the time, you’re not helping.” It’s like, I don’t know, maybe is that emblematic of our apprehension to incentivize dissension? I think ultimately it depends on the team, and the people, and what you agree on. But it’d be an interesting test as you’re listening, or as I’m talking to you, Allison, damn, I’m like, what would it look like for me to incentivize dissension on my team? How would you reward that behavior?

Allison:

Yeah, and how would you? Especially if you’re not a formal leader, how might you do that? A formal, in terms of position. Of course anybody can be a leader, but if you don’t have positional leadership, is there a way to do that?

Ren:

I was thinking just now, I guess you thank the person, maybe you integrate their thinking, maybe you … I guess, how do you reward someone now when they do something you like, when you’re not in the power of formal authority? What does reward look like for you and me?

Allison:

Well, I’ll share with you, and I won’t mention names because I don’t have permission, but somebody last week challenged me in a factual and objective way. I’m thinking about how she approached me, and I think that was … an important part of this is, it was not, “Hey, you are wrong.” It was, she’s in a different function than I am, Ren, and it was, “Hey, just so you know, the reason why X happened is because if it doesn’t happen, this is how it impacts my work.”

I was frustrated, admittedly. I was frustrated with a decision that was made, because it didn’t make sense to me and it didn’t feel efficient, and her challenge … it wasn’t even a challenge, it was just, “Hey, another perspective is that this is how it impacts my work. It makes us more efficient if we do it this way in the long run.” So I think because, I don’t know, we have a solid relationship too, it was probably easier for her to tell me that, but I very much appreciate it and I said, “Thank you so much because now that changes how I approach everybody else in your function. And now I know this and I didn’t know that.”

I think a thank you reinforces that it’s okay to have those types of conversations. It’s okay to disagree. It’s okay to share with somebody an alternate perspective.

Ren:

Yes. Maybe that’s the very way that you create the environment for it, is you build up the skills to have sort of objective conversations despite our subjective experiences. You extend appreciation, maybe you augment your behavior. It’s something I talk to … It’s like any child, often. I remember the kids would be like, “I’m sorry for this.” I’m like, the best sorry would be just to not to do that thing again. That would be the very best apology you could muster. Because then I start to say, are you sorry? Or what are you actually apologizing for?

Then you got to think, too, as you thank your dissenter, are you thanking them just so they shut up or are you thanking them because maybe it changes your perspective? I wonder, too, I love the “red team” concept in journalism. Have you seen or heard that?

Allison:

No. Enlighten me.

Ren:

Despite the best journalistic integrity, journalists get close to the story, and they start to craft their story objectively, as they do. Then the red team’s job is to come in without anything that’s sacred, and kill the darlings, really just do good opposition research and try to poke holes in every single idea or concept. That is an incentivizing, rewarded position. Being on the red team is a fun job, because you’re helping your colleague be better and improve, and your sole mission, you’ve got free rein to just red ink it all over the place, sort of why it’s called the red team.

I think those structures of, “Hey, we have a system called the red team here, so you’re going to bring a project and their job is to highlight the most benign or mundane or egregious errors, and you’re just going to deal with it because you’re going to be their red team one time, and it’s just part of our process.” Maybe you start to highlight “our process.”

Allison:

Yes. I love the idea of asking somebody, and maybe it won’t be in the same way that you just described, but “Hey, look at this. Tell me the ways that I’m not seeing that it could go wrong. Or, what would make you say yes to this? What would make you say no to this?” Those types of questions are really important and, in a lot of ways, brave to have and can do you a lot of good in the long run for so many different reasons. Have you ever done anything like that, Ren?

Ren:

No. I think one of my shortcomings is asking questions I don’t want to hear the answer to. I know my stuff isn’t perfect. That’s what makes it perfect. Probably not as much as I should, I think, but I welcome it in spaces where people feel like they can give it. I just don’t know if I create those environments enough.

I think something that, swinging back to Condoleezza when we think about process and structure, I think one of the things that made her interesting, regardless of her points of view, was that, you highlighted it, how she was able to get work done to connective points or the connective tissue.

She would say, “It’s easy to get overwhelmed if people you’re leading don’t have a sense of priorities. Then they start to spin out in several different directions and won’t accomplish anything.” And so I think a leader’s role, or at least Condoleezza’s role as Secretary of State or anything else, is to help people get a sense of priorities. And in our world where, we know, we talk to leaders all the time, everything’s a priority. I go, “Well, yeah, I know. So what do you do?” Then they shrug emoji and they leave. No, that’s not what happens.

We have real conversations about numbering our priorities or managing the polarity of your priority, then my priority, then your priority, then my priority. I think about Condoleezza Rice. She seemingly was able to manage that. Though I might say that maybe it was just because everyone was singing the exact same song.

Allison:

I don’t know. Gosh, to be a fly on the wall. I have a hard time believing that everybody was singing the same song. And now I’m questioning what I’m saying, too, based off of some of the things that you’ve already said, because from a political standpoint, we hear what gets filtered through the news and some other mediums of course, so I won’t know the whole story.

I think the translation I’m trying to make to our leaders that we communicate with, and that we coach, and that we have in the classroom is that Condoleezza Rice seemed to understand, to your point Ren, how things get done and embrace the reality of working within a political landscape. I don’t mean politics as in her job. I mean that there are politics in every working group, in every working organization, and they’re neutral. Organizational politics are neutral. So embracing that reality, so that she could move teams forward and move initiatives forward. I’m not claiming that CCL had anything to do with her success, but our research has found that the best leaders do have organizational influence, and she demonstrated that skill time and time again.

So I think to translate to that, the workplace, again alluding to the point that you’ve already made, all organizations have 2 sides, like a formal structure, formal processes, pictures on the org chart, and the informal, which more often represents how things really get done. And politically savvy leaders, again at an organizational level, understand both sides of that and really understand those unspoken norms that exist within an organization.

Ren:

I think the most savvy leaders build the norms. Think about who’s calling the shots. What are the rules, and who say they are? We say culture is how you feel on a Sunday morning. Well, how does your boss feel on a Sunday morning or Sunday at night, versus you? I bet it’s different. Why is it different? I wonder why.

I guess for me it comes … at the same Drell Lecture, the security conference, again, I think where you have to be definitive. I’m not even reading through the news here. Her direct quotes are like, “It requires a sense of national mission to make things better here at home first.” That was in the context of, I think in the same vein of, what do powerful nations need to do? What does leading from the front look like? Her commentary is, “I think we need a national mission to make things better here at home first.” I go, but whose mission? Whose rules? Whose formal and informal structure?

I think part of what we got to see with her drive and her role as Secretary of State was that there was a philosophical agreement, and it persists today, about the role of America in the world. She believed that and was in a position to help buff it and support and strengthen that philosophy.

It’s interesting when we talk, especially when marginalized groups get in these conversations, and we’re talking about navigating the rules and trying to play in those spaces, we realize that the conversation looks different depending on where you are. And if you disagree with that national mission, then what does that mean for your experience in the workplace?

Allison:

Yes, and I am so on board with everything that you’re saying, and it gets tricky because this is one perspective that I have, and I also have a conflicting perspective about what I’m about to say. It’s good reminder that 2 things can be true at the same time.

Ren:

Very human. Yes.

Allison:

There are times when I have conversations with clients who will say, “I didn’t have a voice in an X decision. I didn’t get a say in that.” And at the workplace, you’re not always going to get a say in everything, and there’s a reason why the person who’s in charge of your organization is in charge. There’s a reason, they have more insight into the daily business. They have more insight into decisions.

You’re not always going to know everything that happens at your workplace, and you’re not always going to have a say in everything that happens at your workplace. Now, do I think that’s right? Do I think that’s fair? I don’t know. I’m not sure. But I do think there’s a balance or a perspective that can be had. If you are challenging your organization’s mission or what your organization is up to, you might consider asking some questions, because you’re likely not going to be privy to all of the information that led your organization to be making that decision.

There’s also some, unfortunately, some trust that you simply have to have in your organization to be doing the right things. If you don’t have that trust, it’s possible that you’re going to be going down a path of disdain at the workplace every single day, and you’re going to challenge every single decision. That’s going to be not a very happy existence. Again, I’m not saying that it’s right or correct or fair, but I am saying there’s just some give and take that needs to happen at the workplace.

Now, to another thing that you said, which was bringing up marginalized folks, who gets to be in power? Who gets to make those decisions? That’s an area where I have some other thoughts that conflict to everything that I just said, so I’ll pause and let you react.

Ren:

Well, something that you just said, I think for me personally … when we think about trust, think about your personal relationships, to anyone who’s listening. If you don’t have trust, every behavior, every action, it seems like a villainous act. It’s interesting to think, what does it look like to build and rebuild and manage trust? I think in Condoleezza’s experience, and I know she has to face some of that at work now, being a Stanford professor and co-director, albeit of the Hoover Institute, named after one of our most nefarious governmental figures in the FBI … I think it’s an interesting opportunity to think — or at least I’m presuming that’s the case. I’m going to do my research. Do your own research, everybody. Geez. — I think about that trust. And I think about the trust that she’s had to rebuild in her career, because post 9/11 has revealed a lot of maybe disingenuous commentary. Even, I think we talked about Colin Powell or whatever, 20 or 30 episodes ago. Even him, who was heralded as this awesome dude, he had a lot of things … Post 9/11 wasn’t a good look for a lot of people.

Then you think about this idea of how do I maintain trust with you, and then how do I not see every action or every new phrase you say, like I’ve been reading to you here, as more of the same. And so then, maybe this is your chance to bridge, especially as a marginalized group when we’re told about, “You need to make your own decisions, or agency. You got to be accountable for your own growth.” I’m like, are you going to be accountable for the systems of oppression that you perpetuate? What are we talking about here? At least let’s be honest about both parts. I agree, personal accountability needs to happen for marginalized groups, but it can never happen if the bigger system doesn’t recognize its own role in the process.

Allison:

Yes, I agree. I couldn’t agree more. And, if the big system is benefiting you, how motivated are you going to be to change that? That’s where I can get myself into a bit of a rabbit hole because, without being too Debbie Downer here, then will it ever change? If it’s benefiting the people who perpetuate it, what would it take for all of that to change? That is a very big question. I know that. That’s just where my head is.

Ren:

Well, let’s just, for instance, the phrase Debbie Downer, like the phrase Lazy Susan, that is emblematic of, now this is going to harm some of you, but I promise you … this is emblematic of the patriarchy. People are like, “What does that mean, the patriarchy?” It means that we revere men and we minimize women, so much so that colloquially we’re used to saying, “I don’t want to be a Debbie Downer here,” because we know Deborah, and boy, is she a downer.

Or Lazy Susan. Now this is talking about way off-topic, but I don’t know. We’re talking about a woman leader who likely had to navigate all of this stuff. What’s a Lazy Susan? It’s a cabinet that spins. Why? Because women cook. What the hell? We still call it that. We don’t call it a Lazy Susan in our house. I call it a Lazy Gary. I’m busting trends.

Allison:

Gary, Gary, Gary.

Ren:

I call it a Lazy Ren, because I don’t want to bend down into the deep part of the cabinet. I think it’s interesting when we think about those systems of perpetuation, sometimes we’re not even aware about the small bricks that we continue to add to those walls. And you are one of the biggest champions, I would say, of that equitable point of view. It comes out of us because we’re culturally that way.

I think going back to Condoleezza, in her point of view, she’s like, “Hey, if I can cultivate a culture in the right kind of way, remember right or wrong, in great nations, they get in the game and they make the future.” I’m like, ugh, okay, but in whose image?

Allison:

Ren, gosh, I feel like we have this trend, you and I, of really getting to the good stuff when we’re 30 minutes in.

Ren:

Yes.

Allison:

Shoot, because I have so much to say. Thank you for your perspective on the Debbie Downer, and you’re right, these things come out of our mouths, and that just did come out of my mouth. How I learned about that term Debbie Downer was from a cartoon, and now I’m not going to remember which one. Language sticks with us, and language evolves.

I’m only saying this just to highlight how there are so many different perspectives in what you and I are just talking about right now. If you had said Lazy Susan to me, I probably wouldn’t think twice about it. Is it because I’m brainwashed by the patriarchy? Maybe. Maybe. Or do I just want the big picture to be solved? I don’t care. You know what I mean? I’m being personal here. If you were to say that … yes, it has a certain insinuation, I suppose.

And again, I don’t know if it would bug me so much as if you were going to say women belong in the kitchen. If you were to say that, then I might have some pause. We might have a conversation. I’m only saying that because sometimes it is hard to avoid language, because our language has evolved from the society in which we have been molding for a very long time. In the way that you just addressed it with me, I think is a really kind way to address it with people.

I just want to highlight that. Instead of saying, “Allison is sexist,” that’s an easy jump to make and that is a jump that people make all the time. I want to caution people from doing that, because I didn’t know and now I know. So thank you. That’s it, right? The other part of this … now I’ve just lost my train of thought, because I got us into a rabbit hole, so I’ll pause.

Ren:

I want to chase or tap into something you were saying around that you said, that you might take a bigger issue if I was saying women should be in the kitchen. I would say that phrases like Lazy Susan are a reminder of a woman’s role in society. Now there are a lot of people who are like, “Hey…” You’re allowed to believe this, too. If you’re listening and you’re like, “Hey dude, I’m a homemaker. I (beep) love it.” Excuse me. You have to bleep that out, Ryan. I think that’s … Good for you. I don’t care.

I think, to your earlier point around the values, I don’t really care, but we’ve got to be aware that there’s reasons that these monikers don’t have men’s names attached to them. For me it’s, again, it’s always the both / and. I hear you saying too, “Let’s not fight over this cabinet tool. Let’s have bigger conversations about where we are.”

I’d say yes, and when I talk to men and they shrug their shoulders and they say, “No, the patriarchy isn’t real. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve never been advantaged as a man.” These are instances where I can point to and talk about why every pronoun starts with he, for the most part, when we’re referencing a fictional or an unimaginable or even a future character. Hey, what does your boss think about this? “Well, he thinks this.” Oh, I’m sorry, it’s a woman. Or things like that. That stuff happens all of the time.

Allison:

Oh, yeah. And I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m not. I’m just saying, my point in bringing that up was saying, it’s very easy to jump and say, “Allison just said Debbie Downer. She is sexist.” This is a very small example of what happens a lot. And all I’m saying is that, Ren, and to our listeners, the conversation you and I just had was objective and factual, and dare I say safe. You and I have trust though, so that probably helps.

But the minute that you jump and say to somebody, “Allison, you just made a sexist comment.” Again, Ren, if you said that to me, because we have a relationship, it might go differently, but I’m cautioning people to do that. That’s all. I’m cautioning people. The other perspective I want to give, and this is all over, this is … language evolves constantly, and how we use language evolves constantly. Do you need to be aware of what you say? Absolutely. Absolutely. I’m not arguing that.

The word trigger came up in a conversation. I was speaking to a group about mental health a couple of weeks ago. I have a former PTSD diagnosis. I am 6 years into the healing process, so I am all good. Don’t worry. If you were to say, Ren, and people say this all the time, “That comment was so rude, and now I’m triggered,” and people say that in jest all the time, I’m not going to jump down your throat. I know what you meant. But a trigger, to me, means that I physically feel, and my body responds biologically to, a bunch of people having their hands on me in a very inappropriate way. That is different. I’m not going to jump on top of you and attack you for saying that. That’s all I’m saying. I just got us so off track.

Ren:

No, I don’t think you did. I think it actually goes back to, likely something Condoleezza Rice is able to do and something we talked about in the beginning, perspective. What you’re talking about is perspective, and maybe to the real truth —

Allison:

Yes. And trust.

Ren:

And trust. Well, I would even say someone you don’t trust and dislike says that word trigger, you still have an opportunity to live in your healing. You’re 6 years down a journey. Some idiot uses that word and uses it in a way where you don’t trust them, and it does trigger or conjures you. Then still you’re like, “Okay, am I going to let this loser take all of my energy, or am I going to let this be a continued part of my healing?” I think whatever the answer is, you’ve got to do what’s right by you.

I think Condoleezza was able to maintain some of that perspective. One of the most favorite things I’ve heard of her recently saying is, in one of the early articles that I quoted, when she was talking about good leaders need to operate from values, she also talked about how, “I certainly like getting up in the morning, reading a newspaper, thinking I don’t have to do anything about what’s in it.” That sounds like peace. That sounds like someone who’s done the work and goes, “Those are problems. Yes, they are. And those are not my problems.” God, I want to get to that.

Allison:

Yeah. Wouldn’t that be nice? I think you can. Gosh, I know I’m paying attention to the time here, because I know that we probably need to wrap up here in the next few minutes, but Condoleezza Rice certainly has quite the legacy, and that’s how we started this conversation. I do want to reground us in a little bit of her history that you’ve already mentioned, and that I’ve already mentioned too, is that she started her legacy probably before she was 15. It was at 15 that she just went to college, and she started her legacy so early on.

Ren, what is a tip you can give our listeners on developing legacy?

Ren:

Well, damn. Maybe it’s a tip that I think I take from Condoleezza is … make decisions, even if your decisions change. I think she was decisive, like she said around the priorities for the team. It’s like, let’s make decisions. When you think about your legacy, I guess it’s hard to get wrapped up on what should it be? Well, first of all, let’s not should all over ourselves. Get rid of the shoulds. Get rid of the oughts. What do you think it should be today? And then if it changes tomorrow, who cares?

I think it goes back to the congruency. Maybe that’s it. It’s like do your best to cultivate some congruency and think about, there’s a Stoic idea that you should act as if a person you admire the most is watching you; what would you do in front of them? It’s this idea, how do you maintain your good posture when people aren’t looking at you? It’s like, do you pick trash up? Well, only when someone’s looking. Or do you walk past it? It’s this idea of, you always keep that person in your mind.

Maybe you, listener, or anyone who’s building legacy, keep your older self in mind. Looking back, who do you want to be? Would you be proud of it? Or proud of the growth? I don’t know. What would you say?

Allison:

I would say all of that, and add that legacy is something that starts right now, and yesterday, and the day before. So, to be thoughtful, not to the point of being anxious, but just to be thoughtful and intentional about how you are showing up. And asking yourself the question, is this how I want to show up? Or was that, in that conversation I just had, for example. I think I would echo everything that you just said. And also, as a reminder, legacy is in every moment. It starts right now. So, to be thoughtful and intentional about how you are showing up.

Ren:

Love it.

Allison:

Well, we covered the gamut here, unexpectedly.

Ren:

Condoleezza Rice, you did it again. You’re an inspiration.

Allison:

Yes, thank you, Condoleezza Rice. Well, thanks for the conversation, Ren, and to all of our listeners, thanks for listening as well. Find us on LinkedIn. Let us know what you think about our Manager Madness series. Let us know what you want us to talk about next. Let us know, would you want to work for Condoleezza Rice? Why or why not? Find us on LinkedIn, and you can find all of our podcasts and show notes on ccl.org. A big thank you to the CCL team behind the scenes who make the podcast happen. Thanks everyone. We’ll see you next time.

Ren:

Thanks so much everybody. Thanks Allison. Thanks folks. See you next time. Find Allison on TikTok.