In today’s Agile Coaches’ Corner podcast episode, host Dan Neumann is joined by Joseph Carella — a Senior Instructor and Executive Coach of the Eckerd College Leadership Development Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. Joseph is also a practicing psychologist and consulting psychologist for the Orlando Magic NBA Team and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, as well as a Senior Consultant for AvoLead, and the Principal Owner for Carella & Associates.
In this episode, Dan and Joseph discuss the ways that an effective leader coaches. Joseph highlights the differences between professional coaching and executive coaching, real-life examples from his work, what it means to hold somebody accountable, how good leaders can set up a positive environment to get the most out of their team, and how to provide corrective feedback. Joseph also provides his insights around both positive and corrective reinforcement through coaching and when you should hold yourself accountable as a leader when it comes to the “underperformers” on your team.
Like what you heard? Check out our podcast page for more episodes full of interesting discussions, agile insights, and helpful resources.
Intro: [00:03] Welcome to the Agile Coaches’ Corner by AgileThought. The podcast for practitioners and leaders seeking advice to refine the way they work and pave the path to better outcomes. Now here’s your host, coach and agile expert, Dan Neumann.
Dan Neumann: [00:16] Welcome to this episode of the Agile Coaches’ Corner. I’m your host, Dan Neumann, and I’m excited today to be joined by Joe Carella. He’s a senior instructor and faculty of the Eckerd College Leadership Development Institute in St. Pete, Florida, and he’s also a practicing psychologist and a consulting psychologist for the Orlando Magic and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. So thanks for joining Joe.
Joe Carella: [00:40] Thank you very much, Dan. It’s my pleasure to join you.
Dan Neumann: [00:42] All right. And a brief disclaimer, the opinions folks are going to here are yours and mine and not necessarily those of AgileThought or other companies, other people. So it’s a just Joe’s and Dan’s opinions today.
Joe Carella: [00:53] Exactly right.
Dan Neumann: [00:54] Okay, fantastic. I’m excited because we first crossed paths as part of the work you do with Eckerd college and some of the leadership development that you folks do. Could you maybe introduce folks to what that is?
Joe Carella: [01:08] Certainly. So the Eckerd College, Eckerd College has a Leadership Development Institute, which is designed to help train executives on how to function more effectively within the organizations that they live and work. And Eckerd college is a proud partner with the center for creative leadership. Many folks will know that name as they are a premier provider of leadership development around the globe. And Eckerd is the longest standing network associate, meaning that we provide, their five day open enrollment leadership development program, which is their flagship program as well as two other programs. One is T and Lead for success and the other is Maximizing Leadership Potential. And so CCL has been identified by financial times for the last 17 years is a top 10 provider of leadership development worldwide. And we at Eckerd do the same kind of thing, actually. In fact, a third of our clients are within open enrollment, custom and with executive coaching. One third come from the corporate world. One third come from the government and one third come from the not for profit world and so we’re very proud of those affiliations and the work that we do.
Dan Neumann: [02:26] Well, that’s a nice balance too. So you got a whole breadth of perspective in there.
Joe Carella: [02:31] Absolutely. It keeps us on our toes. Uh, needing to be current with the real themes that are affecting people in a variety of different organizations.
Dan Neumann: [02:39] Yeah. And the tools I know that I’ve gotten through that, specifically something called SBI: situation, behavior and impact is something that Christy Erbeck, one of my colleagues and I have mentioned on this podcast in the previous episode, and it’s something we’re practicing with each other, um, as, as way to give feedback to people.
Joe Carella: [03:01] Correct. All the best organizations are feedback rich and people sometimes struggle to provide feedback to others because they’re afraid essentially of hurting feelings or damaging the relationship. And the SBI model is sensational in that it provides objective data. It’s not advice based, it’s just sharing what experience you’re having with other people is about and reduces defensiveness. So allows communication to be enhanced.
Dan Neumann: [03:33] And I see how that fits really well into the world of agile coaching or professional or executive coaching where, you know, we’re saying, hey, here’s the, here’s the situation that happened, here’s the behavior I observed and here’s the impact that it had on me. It, and I guess you’re the pro at this and I want to make sure that I got that correct.
Joe Carella: [03:53] You nailed it. You nailed it. It helps us feel good, that maybe we’re getting our message across.
Dan Neumann: [03:58] Yeah. You know, it is, and it makes me wonder, one of the, one of the facets of agile coaching and coaching in general that I am curious about and I expect others are too, is that approach makes total sense, uh, in a professional space. Non sports professional space. Correct. I’m a Michigan state guy and I can’t see Tom Izzo going, gee, you know, the, um, we were, we were in the game and, and you, you kind of lolly gag down the field. And that really made me wonder, or that really made me sad that you weren’t hustling. Like he’s not going to do that. He, he made the headlines for ripping one of the freshmen here in the, in the, uh, the playoffs recently. And so I’m just curious about the coaching in the professional space versus the coaching of executives because yeah, I just don’t see SBI in the sports space and curious,
Joe Carella: [04:50] Not on the court or on the field. You are absolutely correct about that really. In some ways, executive coaching I have struggled with, there’s almost a misnomer because we, if we associate coaching with giving instruction, providing corrective actions, telling folks what they should do differently and very demanding, basketball, football, tennis, volleyball, whatever the sport, those coaches are expected to tell the athletes what to do and the athletes are expected to execute based upon what they’ve been told to do. Now, there is certainly truth to that in the corporate world as well, but in the corporate world, we tend to try to and have folks feel empowered, understand what they are doing and have a say in the way in which they’re operating. So yeah, SBIs are not offered on the court very often. But behind the scenes, being able to be behaviorally focused makes such a difference. And is probably one of the things that we as human beings struggle with most because we, oh, I love the phrase, we are meaning seeking creatures. And so rather than just describing what we see, often times we make judgments and we assign meaning to why it’s occurring. And that’s useful, but it’s not always the most effective thing to be focused on.
Dan Neumann: [06:14] That’s interesting. It makes me think of the book Crucial Conversations where they’re talking about the story we tell ourselves when we see an event, we, we immediately interpret that we ascribe, I think it’s kind of the meaning to it, the why somebody did that. They’re a jerk, they don’t like me, uh, et cetera. And then our emotions are impacted based on that interpretation of the event.
Joe Carella: [06:36] Correct. And more often than not, people tell stories that are so negative that they end up interfering with the relationship, hurting people somehow and minimizing effectiveness of the performance. One of the examples I can give from the coaching world is, I’ve seen this with the Bucs head coach Bruce Arians. And I’ve seen this, the Magic head coach, Steve Clifford where they will comment on your play right now, the way you’re executing on a quarter on the field and say I don’t like that. I love you as a person, but I don’t like your football or I don’t like your basketball at these moments and this is what we have to correct. And I think they both brilliantly help to address the person and create caring and supportive relationship while still holding them accountable for the actions that their engagement with their behavior on the field.
Dan Neumann: [07:35] That’s very timely, I just recorded an episode with Sam Falco, one of my colleagues here and we’re talking about the Scrum values. And one of the values in the scrum framework is respect for individuals and their ability to, their competence and their ability to work independently. And so it’s, it’s interesting to hear, obviously respect is very important. And the other piece you mentioned then is holding people accountable, which for me that’s a concept that I really struggle with. Um, because conceptually I get it. In practicality, what does it mean to hold somebody accountable? And maybe you could expand on that with from your perspective
Joe Carella: [08:21] So back to the coaching and Tom Izzo because that got so much, so much negative publicity about somebody who’s yelling at a person and it seems in this day and age, so insensitive, to yell at someone and would that be the approach I would take in the hallways at a corporation? Probably not, but in the context of the environment and the context of the sport. What is also authentic? I would suggest though, I don’t know Tom Izzo at all. I’m not speaking from any point of expertise. I’m just basing my on popular media that that’s consistent with who he is and how he’s behaved with his players throughout the, throughout the season and so to go and let him know that I’m not appreciating this, there’s more to you than what you’re demonstrating here. I expect more. You should expect more of yourself. Ironically, that is a form of caring and a form of support and obviously he responded very well thereafter so he didn’t take it the way that the audience did. Looking at only a snippet in time.
Dan Neumann: [09:30] It’s interesting to look at that and try to think. I don’t know him either other than, you know, a, a fan. I’ve got my Michigan state ball cap here. I’m follicly challenged. So when I go out in the sun I try and keep the sun damage to a minimum. Um, and so Michigan state hats are usually my, my hat of choice there. Um, but yeah, he has a reputation for caring about folks. I know there’ve been some, some tough things that teams go through and you know, he, he clearly cares about the players, about the outcome. He wants to see them do the best. They have good relationships after the players leave, uh, at least from what the media is capturing. And so something must be working there.
Joe Carella: [10:12] I would say it absolutely is. In fact, there were some players that I had worked with through teams that are on Michigan State and they just talked about exactly that. But yeah, he’s hard on you. He yells. But they interpret his intentions as positive and when we can interpret someone’s intentions as positive and they truly are, then we’re much more likely to accept it. And to return back to the concept of accountability, I think what Tom Izzo did and what good leaders do is they set the expectations for performance. They make it very clear to what those are and they understand that um, or they get others to confirm understanding of the same. They provide instruction or support or information, guidance, whatever it might be, skill acquisition that they can provide. And then they expect people to perform. And when they do, they’ll positively reinforce what they’re seeing. And when they don’t, they’ll bring it to the person’s attention and often provide corrective actions. So I think of accountability in those ways. Lay out the expectations, let people know and catch them when they’re doing the right thing, when they’re not doing the right thing, it’s having a negative impact on you or on the team, the performance, the task, let them know that as well for the balance really is both positive and negative reinforcement.
Dan Neumann: [11:54] Yeah, I like that framework. So it makes me think in the software world, then or Scrum, it’s most often used to software teams. The agility obviously is beyond the software teams and can get into the business side as well, should get into the business side. So setting those expectations, making them clear, confirm that that person understands them and you say, help them with any skill acquisitions. So there’s a, a framework called adapt. Do you have the ability, I’m sorry, do you have the awareness and do you have the desire? Do you have the ability and then once that’s in there, can you promote and transfer those behaviors across the organization and then reinforcing positively and negatively? What, um, what insights do you have around that, that reinforcement? So on software teams and you know, it doesn’t matter which client, which teams, often there is a person who maybe has right or wrongly earned a reputation for failing to deliver, uh, on deadlines within a timeframe or getting really good at, um, kind of letting the work linger long enough that somebody else helps them or picks up the slack or delivers. And in the sports world, you know, there’s the bench you can threaten people with, which puts at risk any kind of financial targets they might have for performance. They, you know, there is a pretty short leash on athletes from what I can tell, unless you’re a superstar. Um, you know, I think of, uh, some of the bad boys from Detroit, they got away just, just short of murder. Uh, but they were so good that they were tolerated. So ignoring that for a second, you know, we’ve, we’ve got different financial and reputational ways of accountability and that isn’t, that connection’s not quite as obvious in the corporate world between hey, you’re slacking, um, and a in a, um, a true consequence for that behavior.
Joe Carella: [13:52] Right. And when you’re in a position where you don’t have the abilities to, like you said, I’m going to take the thing you probably want most away from you and that being playing time. If you don’t have that, then have to try and understand what are the true motivators for this person, and I would say if there’s something I find to be consistent with less effective leaders is they will too often look at the underperformer, accuse them of not doing what they’re supposed to be doing and the problem lies only with the under performer and not taking that responsibility themselves. And I would suggest holding themselves accountable enough that it is my job to create an environment where I can get the most out of each of the people on this team and get them such that they are and motivated to perform to their best. And so when there’s an underperformer, like you say, someone who’s comfortable in delaying delivering the work, you don’t have very different styles and personality preferences with how they respond to a deadline. Oftentimes when we’re looking at a dimension of pressure prompted versus early starting, I can get a groove or classroom that I’m teaching a program to, and ask the question, alright you’ve been assigned a task, it’s due in 30 days? What day in this process, give me a number that you really start in earnest on getting it done and you will find the full range from day 1 to day 15 to day 28 right? And if the deadline truly is in 30 days, then even though some members of your team might start on day 1 and get it done, and you’d say, Hey, these are great performers, they’re phenomenal. The person that’s doing it on day 28 because they have the energy and that’s where they get the intensity to be able to put their best work forward and delivers it on day 30. Are they really an underperformer or are they just not matching your style where you prefer that they would start on day one and get it to you 21 days earlier?
Dan Neumann: [16:18] It’s interesting. I think about it. I was afraid the answer was going to be the guys who start on day 28 are bad because that tends to be my style. I am, Gosh, I, I just have a hard time getting started when I know I have a month and it was a conference submission systems. Um, you know better with the preparation for the actual delivery. But yeah, that kind of like the deadline is there. I’m going to hunker down and focus, et cetera. Right. Do I need to figure out how to take some of the marathon running training that I’m doing, which I’m pretty good at. Like last night I’m like, well crap, I gotta I gotta go run three miles because I have a race coming up in three weeks and you know, so today I’m going to go do hills because it’s going to have 4,000 some feet of elevation change in it. So it’s interesting to see contextually where, you know, that behavior is different. I’m pretty consistent with the running thing. Um, whereas, uh, the deadline driven approach is often something that comes through in more of the professional activities.
Joe Carella: [17:13] Right, right. Well, I would suggest that starting three weeks early, that might even be a little late.
Dan Neumann: [17:19] Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah, no, I’ve been, yes, agreed. It’s a 50k. Um, and I’ve been running consistently since, uh, January of last year. So yes, yes. If it were, if I was starting from zero for this race, I toast. Like there’s, you know, I would not finish. Yeah, yeah.
Joe Carella: [17:37] Correct. So I think that that’s one of the things that we need to do when considering underperformers. A: look at myself as a leader. How am I interacting with this person? Am I only identifying their weaknesses and the things that I’m not pleased with and thus creating an environment that demotivates the person. Now again, you’ll almost hear a contradiction here because I think that we are all completely responsible for our own behavior, our own actions. And yet the leader is responsible for the environment that is created. And so I would say leaders who find ways to understand their people and simply engage the person. I understand that you are, uh, working on this project. Members of your team are at point x in the progress you are at c. Help me understand what’s going on from their perspective. And then if there truly is a performance gap, identify it again as it comes back to the SBI almost. Identify the behaviors that are problematic and the impact of their behaviors on the task at hand and why it’s important. Allow that person to tell their story, what it is that’s there. And then the phrase I like to use and this comes from, um, from a book, Painless Performance Conversation.
Dan Neumann: [19:07] I’m sorry, what was that one again?
Joe Carella: [19:09] It’s called, Painless Performance Conversation. And it has a, step by step model of being able to, as I, as I basically said, state the problem, ask the person why it is that they’re struggling with it, what their perspective is. Once it’s been identified that it’s important, simply ask them, can we agree that handing in work on time is important to the success of our team? So it doesn’t hold up other, uh, other areas of the functions, other pieces of the project that’s essential for our success. Most rational people are gonna say, yeah, I can agree to that and then put it on them. Well, what are you going to do about it? How are you going to affect this change? What I don’t think happens, the part that doesn’t happen very often. It doesn’t go like that. What happens is the less effective leaders will say, you’re not doing this. You’ve got to do it this way. Get it done the way I want to right now.
Dan Neumann: [20:11] Yeah, I’m very familiar with that approach. And I’ve seen elements of what you’re describing from Painless Performance Conversations and having that framework and having that tool in one’s toolkit as a coach, as a leader, as a manager, um, seems super valuable. So I’m going to have to go through that book as well. It reminds me, there was a book called, Peopleware by Tom DeMarco and one of the quotes that stuck there is it’s not the manager’s job to get people to work. It’s to make it possible for them to work. And that’s pointing to the environment that the team members are and how does one improve it so that people can deliver?
Joe Carella: [20:51] Correct. And if the leaders aren’t responsible for that, I don’t know is.
Dan Neumann: [20:54] Yeah. In agility, um, Gosh you, the Scrum Framework doesn’t have any mention of managers in it and one of the misnomers in the industry is well we’re going agile, we must not need managers and we talk about self organizing teams and trying to draw the difference between a self organizing team and a self managing team. A product owner is responsible and scrum for bringing here are the valuable items that I want delivered and they’re prioritized and they take them to the team and then the team self organizes around, which of those items can we deliver in this sprint. So at two week time box very frequently is a sprint. And so the teams pulling those in and negotiating with the product owner on what they can deliver and then it becomes the team’s job to organize around how they deliver that. So the product owners not telling them, hey here’s, here’s all the tasks you’re going to do and who’s going to do them? The Scrum Master, which is another role is not responsible for delegating those tasks to different people, but it’s up to the team to self organize. And so that’s what we mean by self organization. Then there’s the, the management part, which managers can affect the environment that the teams are. And the tools, the people or, or sometimes they’re called resources but the people that are available, the institutional knowledge, the budgets, whatever it is, you know, they’re responsible for managing that environment and often they’re, they’re used to being task delegators.
Joe Carella: [22:23] Sure. So I think the agile approach is fabulous because really at its best, we call it a team driven team, right? Where player or a player driven team players holding other players accountable. They don’t leave it for the coaches to that. Coaches create an environment that allows for that. And the best coaches in the world recognize how much mature is my team right now. Do I have more freshman sophomores on it? Do I have more juniors and seniors? Freshmen and sophomores sometimes have a hard time driving a player driven team where they need more guidance. And I think that’s part of the problem when, if you think about the agile approach, which is if it’s not a team that has members of it who are really ready to be, uh, I’m sorry, I forgot the phrase you used, self organized? If they are not experienced enough to really create a self organizing environment. Then you have some challenges because I always think about it regardless of whether or not only a leader has been specifically named, there still is the person with power that’s in there who leads with the most personal power. And if it’s an effective positive person that has the personal power, then great. But if it’s a person who is maybe not motivated in the same way and pointing in the right or the best direction as laid out for the project, then it can be incredibly destructive.
Dan Neumann: [24:08] And with that destructive, with the potential to have a team with a destructive leader of sorts, you know, unofficially perhaps. Is that still where the, um, the approach in this painless performance conversation would be appropriate? Or is there a different approach when the leadership seems to be not valuable, not helpful or, or potentially destructive?
Joe Carella: [24:33] There are very few places where I don’t think that the, uh, performance approach is inappropriate. And so it’s just a matter of who was coming in to hold that person accountable and to have that conversation. And it might be somebody that’s at a higher level of the organization. It might be someone on the customer side. Whoever’s experiencing the pain of the lack of success of the, of the project is probably the person that needs to go and have that conversation.
Dan Neumann: [25:02] Okay. That’s a good, good point and it’s nice and practical for folks. I think um, given, I’d love to continue this conversation for a very long time, but given that we’re typically super for about half an hour episodes, I was interested if we could touch on the concept of psychological safety. And so agile doesn’t necessarily talk about psychological safety, but there’s a concept called modern agile. A gentleman named Josh Kerievsky is behind it and one of the four tenets of that is, uh, make safety a prerequisite. So it’s the safety to change the software code and a bunch of other facets. But then we get to talking about kind of psychological safety too. To take risks, to hold people accountable, to try new things. Um, I’m curious if, uh, how that maybe factors in either in the sports coaching or leadership coaching and in making it safe to have the painless performance types of conversations. So SBI is one of those. Because we’re talking about the impact that had on me as opposed to your, a bad person for exhibiting that behavior.
Joe Carella: [26:14] Correct. Take Your judgment out of it. Absolutely. I guess I would also say that the psychological safety, we need to understand the personality style differences, right? Because there are some people who don’t need a whole lot of, if you will, encouragement or, um, concern from others to take risks and to speak out. So there are some styles where I feel like I’m doing my best if I challenge you. Those are the people that are oftentimes accused of being or damaging the psychological safety on a team. They really do feel like they’re, they’re doing their best if they’re challenging the rules and the status quo and they’re questioning why you were doing what you’re doing. Whereas folks can be at the other end of the personality style of continuum where it’s, well, I’m not going to say anything here until I have permission. I don’t want to put forth a bad idea because it might disrupt the harmony of the team. And so when we can see and leaders can see that that continuum exists, they can adjust their style to define the kind of psychological safety net necessary on this team. It might require me to say, all right, okay. Two people at opposite ends of this continuum working on the same project together then I’m probably going to have to be more hands on and clarify. I do want the behavior of throwing ideas out and we’ll have to have an angel’s advocate on the team. And an angel’s advocate, as someone who is going to support an idea put forth as compared to the devil’s advocate who does what
Dan Neumann: [28:02] They’re always shooting it down.
Joe Carella: [28:03] Always shooting it down, right. So the, the norms that get created on the team are how the best leaders are able to get a sense of the other members of the team, or which are the ones that need probably a six to one positive to negative ratio of reinforcement and who were the ones that only need a two to one or one to one ratio of positive to negative reinforcement and who can help the communication where you’re clarifying the intentions such that a person who is very comfortable with challenging the status quo when they make a comment, this is harsh. Helping the rest of the team to see. While I understand the experience that is harsh, were those your intentions, were you intending to be critical of the person and oftentimes they say no, no. I just feel like we got to get this idea on the table. So the psychological safety I do think is very important and it really is the emotionally intelligent leader who can sift through and not apply a one one style fix to every situation.
Dan Neumann: [29:12] Yeah. That’s the hard work of being a leader, of being a manager a lot of times folks are seeking the best practice is the phrase. I’m sure that’s used you know, in your world as well. And in these complex situations what we really need is a whole bunch of good practices and then applying those it contextually to, okay, we’ve got the person who’s typically playing a devil’s advocate and maybe hurts feelings or we’ve got somebody who used to holding back and waiting for the right, the right context or the right permission. I’m a preacher’s kid. Right? I mean we have an interesting reputation for being rulebreakers but at the same time, you know, power, distance and authority, like that’s kind of something that gets ingrained in you, uh, as a young child. And, and then for different, um, different cultures too. You know a lot of outsourcing is done in Brazil, Russia, India, China and those all have different, um, tendencies. You know, culturally, obviously each person’s unique, but on a spectrum they’re in different places with regards to speaking out or not.
Joe Carella: [30:25] Correct and what feels safe for them and what does not. Especially in regards to how authority is seen.
Dan Neumann: [30:25] Yeah, far more than just giving people the, the rules of the game and saying, now go, now, go execute these plays. Fascinating.
Joe Carella: [30:37] It really is. It’s funny how you brought up your family background. My father actually was in computers and early on in the networking days I used to say that my father got computers to talk to each other and I get people to talk to each other, so that’s how we understand each other. Yeah. I would say, He had an easier job.
Dan Neumann: [30:58] Agreed. Well, you know, um, yeah, because there’s something to fix when computers don’t talk to each other properly.
Joe Carella: [31:04] Right.
Dan Neumann: [31:05] And boy, you start peeling that onion with humans and woo, you’ll look under that rug sometimes, like oh boy.
Joe Carella: [31:12] Right, right. Yeah.
Dan Neumann: [31:13] So I was not a psychology major, but uh, it’s a very much an interest of mine from a young age. My sister was a psychology major and so we’ve, we’ve apparently developed some interest in the way humans interact with each other.
Joe Carella: [31:30] Absolutely, that’s awesome.
Dan Neumann: [31:32] Well, Joe, I’ve really appreciated our time so far today. And one of the things we often ask participants in this podcast is what they’re reading or what’s maybe inspiring them or they’re learning about and, and I was curious if you’d share kind of what, uh, what’s been catching your attention lately.
Joe Carella: [31:47] Yeah, a couple of them I’ll read and revisit chapters and passages from it is, Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Togeher and Others Don’t, by Simon Sinek. I really enjoy that. Team of Teams by General McChrystal is something that I found really fascinating. And then more recently, The Rise of Superman. It’s actually kind of in sports psychology world of seeing what it takes to get into the flow state or ideal performance state, the zone. And in fact some of the study that’s being done with regard to what’s happening biologically, neuroscience behind it. And we’re finding that it’s actually the extreme sport athletes that are literally in the zone more often than not. So some people will think of them as adrenaline junkies and in fact the adrenaline is the part they like least. The adrenaline is the precursor to actually being in the zone. It’s a heightened sense of awareness, time slowing down, those kinds of factors that people have spoken about for many years. And to get there, it would really have to change your biochemistry and the fact that these athletes, literally, it becomes life or death, that emphasis or that horse, that stimulus is what gets them into his own more quickly than you and I.
Dan Neumann: [33:16] Wow. Yeah. I watched a show, I haven’t been reading a ton lately, but I watched a, I think it was a Netflix or an Amazon prime, but it was the guy who free climbed El Capitan I think. So no ropes and I don’t even know where he was finding a spot to hold onto this sheer rock face. But yeah, he free climbed it and you know, he doesn’t have a death wish. He’s not suicidal. But you went up thousands of feet of flat rock essentially with no support. It’s crazy. So yeah, I think that rise of Superman is one I’ll have to, um, read. I’ve done Team of Teams and Leaders Eat Last is a classic. Um, yeah, I’m reading one on audible. I’m still gonna count it as reading called The Three Christs of Ypsilanti. It’s something I think people would never get away with. Now. Basically it was the Ypsilanti Michigan Mental Hospital. It had three patients, um, I think in the fifties or sixties who were all convinced they were Jesus Christ and the psychologist decided it’d be really good idea to get them in the same room and have them convince each other that none of them possibly could be because all three of them were claiming. And it’s wild. I just, um, it’s kind of fascinating to hear the background of these folks who ended up in a pretty rough spot and some of the, uh, the notions in psychology that you could not get away with today, I’m sure for good reason. Right. So it’s an interesting, uh, that’s my, uh, somewhat valuable listening. I don’t know. I don’t know that there’s anything nearly as practical as what we were talking about with kind of the framework for accountability and the painless performance conversations, but interesting nonetheless. Excellent. Excellent. Well, thanks for joining Joe. Really appreciate you taking time out of your day to share with folks.
Joe Carella: [35:03] It’s been my pleasure. Thanks for the opportunity and I hope we’ll connect again.
Dan Neumann: [35:07] Oh, absolutely. Thank you.
Outro: [35:11] This has been the Agile Coaches’ Corner Podcast brought to you by AgileThought, get the show notes and other helpful tips from this episode and other episodes at agilethought-staging.ectfh4-liquidwebsites.com/podcast.
Contact us to share the challenges you’re facing and learn more about the solutions we offer to help you achieve your goals. Our job is to solve your problems with expertly crafted software solutions and real world training.
For a better experience on the web, please upgrade to a modern browser.