The Keyboard Mapping of Generational Leadership | The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

Description

Benoit Vancauwenberghe posits that the modern workplace's intergenerational friction is not born from simple defiance, but from a deep-seated cultural and linguistic divide. He introduces the "keyboard theory" to explain this phenomenon: leaders and their younger employees interpret the same workplace cues, like an "open door" policy, in entirely different ways.

Unlike their predecessors, who accepted subordination in exchange for job security, Gen Z perceives this traditional pact as obsolete. Vancauwenberghe reframes these young professionals not as rebels, but as rational auditors who are unwilling to pledge loyalty to a system that no longer promises long-term security. To bridge this gap, he argues that leaders must abandon the assumption of a shared reality and instead learn to actively translate their intentions into a new, explicit framework that resonates with the next generation.

The Gen Z Shift: Introducing an essential audio series by Benoît Vancauwenberghe, founder of 20Something, and produced by NotebookKLM's AI podcast. This series is an indispensable resource for HR leaders and managers across Europe. We cut through the noise to provide actionable insights into how Gen Z is fundamentally reshaping leadership, work, and talent strategy, drawing from cutting-edge research and extensive consulting experience.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Deep Dive. I want to start today with something you've probably seen, especially if you manage or, you know, work with younger people. Imagine for a second that you have just landed in an airport in Japan. You step out of the terminal, you've got your bags, and immediately, before you even look at a sign, you feel it.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's a physical shift, isn't it? Like, the volume drops, the rhythm of the crowd is entirely near.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You are in a different world. And you realize very quickly that the rules you operate by back home, you know, the default settings of your social behavior, they just don't apply here.
Speaker #1
Right. There's that famous example of the business card. I mean, in the U.S. or Europe, you might slide a card across a table while you're checking a text message. It's super casual. But in Japan, that's practically an insult. You have to hand it over with two hands. You bow. The local receives it and treats it like a precious manuscript.
Speaker #0
And if you don't do that, You aren't just quirky. You are the absolute elephant in the china shop. But here's the thing. When we travel, we accept that.
Speaker #1
We do.
Speaker #0
We slow down. We watch the locals. We activate this adaptation reflex to survive socially because, well, we know we are the foreigner.
Speaker #1
But then you fly home.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
You walk into your office on Monday morning. You sit down across from a 22-year-old colleague. And that adaptation reflex, it just vanishes.
Speaker #0
Because we assume that just because we speak the same language... And, you know, we share the same office snacks. We must be inhabiting the same world.
Speaker #1
Which, according to the research we're diving into today, is a complete illusion. We're looking at the work of Gen Z specialist Benoit van Kouwenberge. And his thesis is startlingly simple, but really heavy. He says every generation is a foreign country.
Speaker #0
Every generation is a foreign country. It's a catchy line and I get the sentiment. But I do have to push back a little right at the start of this deep. deep dive. Is it really a foreign country or are we just dealing with the standard, you know, kids these days friction that happens literally every 20 years?
Speaker #1
That's totally fair.
Speaker #0
I mean, didn't the boomers hate the millennials? Didn't the greatest generation hate the boomers?
Speaker #1
That's exactly the skepticism we need to start with. And you're right. Intergenerational friction is as old a time. I mean, Aristotle complained about the youth, but Van Kouwenberg argues this isn't just about taste. It's not like they prefer TikTok and you prefer email.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We are looking at a translation error, a systemic breakdown in how meaning is actually conveyed.
Speaker #0
So we're not here to just bash lazy kids.
Speaker #1
No, absolutely not.
Speaker #0
And we're not here to bash out-of-touch bosses either.
Speaker #1
Definitely not. If you leave this deep dive thinking one side is right and the other is wrong, we really haven't done our job. We need to look at the machinery beneath the conflict. And to do that, we have to talk about keyboards.
Speaker #0
Right, the keyboard theory. I read this in the source materials, and I have to admit, it took me a minute to wrap my head around it.
Speaker #1
It's a bit abstract at first.
Speaker #0
It is. But once it clicked, it honestly explained about 90% of the awkward meetings I've had in the last year.
Speaker #1
It's a really powerful visual. So let's set the scene. Imagine a Gen X leader. Let's call him Dave and a Gen Z employee. Let's call her Sarah. They're sitting across from each other. They both have laptops open, and the keyboards look absolutely identical.
Speaker #0
Same QWERTY layout.
Speaker #1
Exactly. The enter key. is in the exact same spot.
Speaker #0
So naturally, Dave assumes they are playing the exact same instrument.
Speaker #1
Right. He thinks I press A, she sees A.
Speaker #0
Oh.
Speaker #1
But the mapping, the actual software underneath that connects the physical key to the screen is completely different.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
Let's take a specific key from the research. Let's say Dave presses the key marked hierarchy.
Speaker #0
Hierarchy. Now, for a Gen X leader or a boomer, that usually maps to something positive, right?
Speaker #1
Usually, yes. On Dave's screen, hierarchy displays his efficiency. It means structure. It means clarity. It means I know exactly who to go to so we can get this task done fast.
Speaker #0
Right. It's the org chart. It's just how things work.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But Sarah, she presses that exact same physical key hierarchy, but her internal software maps it to something totally different. On her screen, hierarchy displays as opacity or slowness.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Or even gatekeeping.
Speaker #0
That is a massive disconnect. So one person is literally asking for structure and the other person hears. bureaucracy.
Speaker #1
And neither of them realizes it. That's the Tower of Babel effect right there. Everyone believes they are speaking clearly. Dave says, we need more hierarchy on this project, thinking he is solving a chaos problem.
Speaker #0
And Sarah hears, we need to make this slower and hide information from you.
Speaker #1
Precisely. And then Dave gets frustrated because Sarah resists. And Sarah gets frustrated because Dave seems obsessed with red tape.
Speaker #0
They're typing on different keyboards, getting entirely different outputs. But they're blaming each other for the typos.
Speaker #1
That is the perfect way to put it. No one has stopped to translate the keystrokes.
Speaker #0
But is this just about abstract concepts like hierarchy? I mean, does this happen with day-to-day stuff? Because I feel like I'm pretty clear when I give direct instructions.
Speaker #1
Oh, it happens with the most well-intentioned phrases in the corporate dictionary. In fact, sometimes the nicer you try to be, the worse the translation error actually is. Let's look at a practical, real-world scenario from Van Kouwenberge's consulting work. Let's talk about the open door policy.
Speaker #0
Oh, no. My door is always open. I say this. I have definitely said this. It's like the standard good boss line.
Speaker #1
It is. It's supposed to be the ultimate management olive branch. Ben Kauenberg talks about consulting for these executives who were literally paring their hair out over this.
Speaker #0
What were they saying?
Speaker #1
They were telling him, I tell my team constantly, my door is open. If you're struggling, just come to me. But they never come. They just sit at their desks and fail in silence.
Speaker #0
So the leaders interpret that silence as What exactly?
Speaker #1
A lack of courage.
Speaker #0
Exactly. They think, well, they're passive or they lack initiative. But let's look at the keyboard mapping again. For the leader, the open door key maps to proximity. It maps to trust. It means I am accessible.
Speaker #1
Right. It means I'm here to help. Now, switch to the Gen Z keyboard, the new keyboard. Benoit actually went and interviewed the young employees about this exact scenario. He asked them, why don't you go in? And their answer wasn't about laziness. It was about fear.
Speaker #0
Fear of the boss. But the boss just explicitly said the door is open.
Speaker #1
It's fear of the implication. To the Gen Z employee, walking into a superior's office uninvited without a clear predefined reason feels undefined. And in a corporate setting for this generation, undefined equals unsafe.
Speaker #0
Unsafe how? Like they're going to get fired.
Speaker #1
Like they're exposing a critical weakness. The internal monologue goes something like this. If I walk in there uninvited, do I look like I can't handle my workload? Am I bypassing my direct manager? Am I annoying them?
Speaker #0
Oh, wow.
Speaker #1
Am I revealing that I actually don't know what I'm doing?
Speaker #0
So the signal received isn't support at all. The signal is risk.
Speaker #1
Huge risk. The leader thinks they just threw a lifeline, but the employee feels like they're being asked to walk a tightrope without a safety net.
Speaker #0
This is so fascinating because the intention is 100% positive, but the reception is 100% negative. So if my door is always open as a broken key, Do we just stop talking to them? That seems completely counterproductive.
Speaker #1
No, you don't stop talking. You have to upgrade your operating system. You have to understand that the old keyboard boomer or Gen X model relies heavily on the implicit.
Speaker #0
The implicit.
Speaker #1
Right. Come if you need me is an implicit invitation. The new keyboard requires the explicit.
Speaker #0
Explicit. Okay. How do you make my doors open explicit without sounding like some sort of micromanaging robot?
Speaker #1
Well, you don't just say you can come see me. You send a calendar invite. You say I have. booked 15 minutes tomorrow at 10 a.m. specifically to hear what roadblocks you're facing.
Speaker #0
Ah, I see. You formalize it.
Speaker #1
You validate the interaction. By booking the time, you are sending a very clear signal. You are not bothering me. This is your dedicated time. You are safe. You change the mapping from risk back to support.
Speaker #0
It totally removes the guesswork.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And that's a massive theme in this research. Yeah. The younger generation, generally speaking, heavily distrust ambiguity in the workplace. They want the rules of engagement written down.
Speaker #0
Okay, I hear that. And the calendar invite makes total sense in practice. But I have to ask the why question here, because I can hear some of our listeners, especially the older ones, thinking, wow, that sounds like a lot of hand-holding. Why are they so risk-averse?
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Why do they need a calendar invite just to talk to a boss? Why can't they just knock?
Speaker #1
That is the million-dollar question. Is it just that they're fragile? Or is there something... deep and structural going on. The expert shifts the conversation here to something he calls the archaeology of the promise.
Speaker #0
The archaeology of the promise. That sounds like we're digging up ruins.
Speaker #1
We are. We're digging up the ruins of the old workplace deal. If we want to understand why the keyboard changed, we have to look at the history that built the Gen X keyboard in the first place.
Speaker #0
Okay. So what was the terms of this old deal?
Speaker #1
The working world that people over 40 grew up in was governed by a massive invisible contract. The source calls it Subordination for protection.
Speaker #0
Subordination for protection. Break that down for us. What was the actual trade being made?
Speaker #1
It was a very coherent system. You, the employee, gave the institution your time, your obedience, your conformity. You accepted the friction in your early years. You made the coffee. You waited your turn. You didn't question the boss.
Speaker #0
You paid your dues. That's the phrase we always use.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You paid your dues. And in exchange, the institution gave you a horizon. They guaranteed a linear career. Your salary rose reliably with age. You had safety. You could buy a house on a single income.
Speaker #0
There's a metaphor in the source that compares experience to real estate, right?
Speaker #1
Yes. It says experience was an asset that appreciated over time, exactly like real estate. The longer you stayed, the safer you were. So subordination made absolute sense. It was an investment. You put up with the friction today because you knew it would pay off in 10 years.
Speaker #0
But that world, I mean, looking around at the economy today, does that world even exist anymore?
Speaker #1
And that is the absolute crux of the issue. That world is gone. But the leaders today are often deeply nostalgic for that model. They think, well, I paid my dues. Why won't they? They aren't just power-hungry managers. They are mourning a time when the future was a promise, not a threat.
Speaker #0
So they're operating on memory.
Speaker #1
Yes. But Gen Z, they're walking into the ruins of that contract. They didn't see the promise. They saw the betrayal.
Speaker #0
What do you mean by betrayal?
Speaker #1
Think about what they watched growing up. They saw their parents, Gen X, play by the rules. They saw them submit, work late, be incredibly loyal to the company. And then what happened in 2008? Or during corporate restructuring? Or COVID?
Speaker #0
They saw them get laid off.
Speaker #1
They saw them get downsized at 50 because they were suddenly too expensive. They saw that experience wasn't treated like appreciating real estate at all. The source says it was treated like obsolete software.
Speaker #0
That is a brutal shift. From real estate to obsolete software.
Speaker #1
It changes everything about the math. If you know that loyalty doesn't buy you safety, then paying your dues isn't an investment anymore. It's just suffering.
Speaker #0
It's a bad deal.
Speaker #1
From their perspective, yes. So... This leads us to what I think is the most provocative part of the research. We love to label Gen Z. We call them rebels. Yeah. We call them disruptors. We say they want to brun down the system.
Speaker #0
Right. The activist employee who wants to change the company values before they've even learned how to use the office printer.
Speaker #1
Van Kallenberg says that is the total romantic misreading of the situation. Yeah. They aren't rebels. They aren't trying to kill the king.
Speaker #0
So if they aren't rebels, what are they?
Speaker #1
They are auditors.
Speaker #0
Auditors. Like tax accountants? That is not the sexy revolutionary image I had in mind.
Speaker #1
But think about the distinction. It's huge. A critic or a rebel judges your morals. They say what you are doing is ethically wrong. An auditor doesn't care about your morals. An auditor checks your math.
Speaker #0
Numbers don't add up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. When an auditor looks at a company's books and sees a bankrupt account, they don't cry. They don't start a revolution in the streets. And they certainly don't work for free to try and fix it.
Speaker #0
No, they just refuse to sign off.
Speaker #1
They simply withdraw their investment. So when we see Gen Z quiet quitting or job hopping every 18 months or refusing to do overtime without extra pay, that isn't rebellion. That is an audit.
Speaker #0
It's a math check.
Speaker #1
It's cold economic logic. They look at the box labeled future promises, that box that used to hold pensions and stability, and they see that the box is empty.
Speaker #0
The box is empty. That's haunting.
Speaker #1
If the institution can no longer guarantee the long term, then sacrificing the short term is entirely irrational. Why would I suffer through paying my dues today for a payoff in 20 years if I know, statistically speaking, that payoff isn't coming?
Speaker #0
It's like investing in a stock that you know is going to crash. You'd be an idiot to buy it.
Speaker #1
Precisely. So offering blind loyalty isn't a virtue anymore. It's a risk, a massive financial and emotional risk. Reframing the friction this way changes everything. It's not destruction. It's a rational withdrawal from a deal that makes no economic sense.
Speaker #0
This really reframes the whole entitlement argument. Because managers feel this resistance, this no to overtime, or this demand for immediate raises. And they take it so personally, they think, these kids don't respect me.
Speaker #1
But the auditor isn't attacking you. The auditor is just showing you the spreadsheet. They are saying, you are asking for level 10 loyalty, but you are only offering level 2 security. The math doesn't work. I'm out.
Speaker #0
It's strictly business.
Speaker #1
It is. And honestly, it's probably the most rational response to the modern economy. The source puts it beautifully. The contract wasn't betrayed. It expired.
Speaker #0
You cannot renew an expired contract with old promises.
Speaker #1
You really can't. And that's a tough pill for leaders to swallow because we want to believe we can still offer that safety. But unless you can literally guarantee they'll have a job in 20 years, you can't ask them to act like it.
Speaker #0
So synthesizing all of this, where does that leave us? Because we still have to get work done. We still have to run companies. If the old contract of subordination for protection is dead and the auditors are checking the math. How do we actually bridge the gap? Do we just give up?
Speaker #1
No, you definitely don't give up. You go back to the keyboard, you stop relying on the implicit. The source actually mentions a solution framework called the SINEL code.
Speaker #0
SINEL sounds like a secret spy agency.
Speaker #1
It does, but we don't even need to unpack the whole acronym letter by letter today. The core philosophy is what matters. You have to rebuild trust through explicit signals. You replace blind trust with verified trust.
Speaker #0
Verified trust. What does that actually look like in a Tuesday morning meeting?
Speaker #1
It means you stop selling a vague future and start negotiating the present. You don't say, work hard and good things will happen eventually. That's a bad check. That bounces with an auditor.
Speaker #0
So what do you say instead?
Speaker #1
You say, if you deliver Project X by Friday, here is the specific outcome Y that will happen on Monday. Maybe it's a day off. Maybe it's dedicated time to learn a new skill. Maybe it's taking the lead on the next pitch.
Speaker #0
You dramatically shorten the feedback loop.
Speaker #1
You make the transaction clear and explicit. The auditor needs to see the return on investment of their effort in real time.
Speaker #0
It sounds like it forces leaders to be, well, better leaders, more accountable to their own words.
Speaker #1
It forces absolute clarity. Saying my door is open is lazy leadership on the old keyboard. Booking a 15-minute blockage removal session is active leadership on the new keyboard. It's harder? Yes. But it's the only way to clear the error on the screen.
Speaker #0
And it creates trust because you're actually delivering on what you said right now rather than promising something for 2035.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You build a track record. You prove to the auditor that your math actually works.
Speaker #0
It goes all the way back to the airport in Japan, the two-handed business card. It feels awkward at first. It feels a bit performative. But if you do it, you bridge the gap.
Speaker #1
You stop being the elephant in the china shop. You show respect for their reality. And when you do that... you might find that these auditors are actually incredibly effective employees. They're fast, they're pragmatic, and they won't let you run your team on delusion.
Speaker #0
They might actually save us from our own bad math.
Speaker #1
They just might.
Speaker #0
This has been such a refreshing way to look at this topic. It takes the emotion completely out of it. It's not about kids these days having a bad attitude. It's about history and economics and translation errors.
Speaker #1
And recognizing that the author isn't your enemy. They are just the messenger. And usually, the message is one the institution desperately needs to hear.
Speaker #0
So as we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you, the listener, with a thought to mull over. We've established that the old contract subordination for protection is dead. The box is empty.
Speaker #1
It's definitely not refilling itself.
Speaker #0
So here is the provocative question you need to ask yourself, whether you are a CEO, a middle manager, or just someone trying to navigate this new landscape. If you can't offer guaranteed safety anymore, what is the new deal?
Speaker #1
That's the real challenge. If you can't promise a job for life, what is the new currency of value you can offer to get the best out of this auditor generation? Is it radical flexibility? Is it rapid skill acquisition? Is it pure autonomy?
Speaker #0
Whatever it is, you have to make it explicit because the auditors are watching. They're checking the math and they aren't accepting IOUs anymore. No, they certainly are not.
Speaker #1
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. Good luck with your audit and we'll see you next time.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

The Generation Z Shift: Conversations explores the signals, tensions and changes emerging across today’s workplaces. Inspired by Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s work with younger generations, his 20something articles, research, and consulting experience, each episode turns one idea into a short, accessible conversation.

The series looks at questions such as why loyalty is changing, what younger generations expect from leadership, how feedback culture is evolving, why disengagement can be a signal rather than the problem itself, and what organizations need to rethink to stay relevant.

This audio series expands on the world behind The Gen Z Shift. It is not the audiobook, but a complementary series designed to explore the ideas, observations, and generational shifts shaping work, leadership, and culture. Created from Benoit’s original content and produced in an AI-generated conversational format using NotebookLM. Listen, question your assumptions, and learn to read the signals differently.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Description

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Deep Dive. I want to start today with something you've probably seen, especially if you manage or, you know, work with younger people. Imagine for a second that you have just landed in an airport in Japan. You step out of the terminal, you've got your bags, and immediately, before you even look at a sign, you feel it.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's a physical shift, isn't it? Like, the volume drops, the rhythm of the crowd is entirely near.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You are in a different world. And you realize very quickly that the rules you operate by back home, you know, the default settings of your social behavior, they just don't apply here.
Speaker #1
Right. There's that famous example of the business card. I mean, in the U.S. or Europe, you might slide a card across a table while you're checking a text message. It's super casual. But in Japan, that's practically an insult. You have to hand it over with two hands. You bow. The local receives it and treats it like a precious manuscript.
Speaker #0
And if you don't do that, You aren't just quirky. You are the absolute elephant in the china shop. But here's the thing. When we travel, we accept that.
Speaker #1
We do.
Speaker #0
We slow down. We watch the locals. We activate this adaptation reflex to survive socially because, well, we know we are the foreigner.
Speaker #1
But then you fly home.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
You walk into your office on Monday morning. You sit down across from a 22-year-old colleague. And that adaptation reflex, it just vanishes.
Speaker #0
Because we assume that just because we speak the same language... And, you know, we share the same office snacks. We must be inhabiting the same world.
Speaker #1
Which, according to the research we're diving into today, is a complete illusion. We're looking at the work of Gen Z specialist Benoit van Kouwenberge. And his thesis is startlingly simple, but really heavy. He says every generation is a foreign country.
Speaker #0
Every generation is a foreign country. It's a catchy line and I get the sentiment. But I do have to push back a little right at the start of this deep. deep dive. Is it really a foreign country or are we just dealing with the standard, you know, kids these days friction that happens literally every 20 years?
Speaker #1
That's totally fair.
Speaker #0
I mean, didn't the boomers hate the millennials? Didn't the greatest generation hate the boomers?
Speaker #1
That's exactly the skepticism we need to start with. And you're right. Intergenerational friction is as old a time. I mean, Aristotle complained about the youth, but Van Kouwenberg argues this isn't just about taste. It's not like they prefer TikTok and you prefer email.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We are looking at a translation error, a systemic breakdown in how meaning is actually conveyed.
Speaker #0
So we're not here to just bash lazy kids.
Speaker #1
No, absolutely not.
Speaker #0
And we're not here to bash out-of-touch bosses either.
Speaker #1
Definitely not. If you leave this deep dive thinking one side is right and the other is wrong, we really haven't done our job. We need to look at the machinery beneath the conflict. And to do that, we have to talk about keyboards.
Speaker #0
Right, the keyboard theory. I read this in the source materials, and I have to admit, it took me a minute to wrap my head around it.
Speaker #1
It's a bit abstract at first.
Speaker #0
It is. But once it clicked, it honestly explained about 90% of the awkward meetings I've had in the last year.
Speaker #1
It's a really powerful visual. So let's set the scene. Imagine a Gen X leader. Let's call him Dave and a Gen Z employee. Let's call her Sarah. They're sitting across from each other. They both have laptops open, and the keyboards look absolutely identical.
Speaker #0
Same QWERTY layout.
Speaker #1
Exactly. The enter key. is in the exact same spot.
Speaker #0
So naturally, Dave assumes they are playing the exact same instrument.
Speaker #1
Right. He thinks I press A, she sees A.
Speaker #0
Oh.
Speaker #1
But the mapping, the actual software underneath that connects the physical key to the screen is completely different.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
Let's take a specific key from the research. Let's say Dave presses the key marked hierarchy.
Speaker #0
Hierarchy. Now, for a Gen X leader or a boomer, that usually maps to something positive, right?
Speaker #1
Usually, yes. On Dave's screen, hierarchy displays his efficiency. It means structure. It means clarity. It means I know exactly who to go to so we can get this task done fast.
Speaker #0
Right. It's the org chart. It's just how things work.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But Sarah, she presses that exact same physical key hierarchy, but her internal software maps it to something totally different. On her screen, hierarchy displays as opacity or slowness.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Or even gatekeeping.
Speaker #0
That is a massive disconnect. So one person is literally asking for structure and the other person hears. bureaucracy.
Speaker #1
And neither of them realizes it. That's the Tower of Babel effect right there. Everyone believes they are speaking clearly. Dave says, we need more hierarchy on this project, thinking he is solving a chaos problem.
Speaker #0
And Sarah hears, we need to make this slower and hide information from you.
Speaker #1
Precisely. And then Dave gets frustrated because Sarah resists. And Sarah gets frustrated because Dave seems obsessed with red tape.
Speaker #0
They're typing on different keyboards, getting entirely different outputs. But they're blaming each other for the typos.
Speaker #1
That is the perfect way to put it. No one has stopped to translate the keystrokes.
Speaker #0
But is this just about abstract concepts like hierarchy? I mean, does this happen with day-to-day stuff? Because I feel like I'm pretty clear when I give direct instructions.
Speaker #1
Oh, it happens with the most well-intentioned phrases in the corporate dictionary. In fact, sometimes the nicer you try to be, the worse the translation error actually is. Let's look at a practical, real-world scenario from Van Kouwenberge's consulting work. Let's talk about the open door policy.
Speaker #0
Oh, no. My door is always open. I say this. I have definitely said this. It's like the standard good boss line.
Speaker #1
It is. It's supposed to be the ultimate management olive branch. Ben Kauenberg talks about consulting for these executives who were literally paring their hair out over this.
Speaker #0
What were they saying?
Speaker #1
They were telling him, I tell my team constantly, my door is open. If you're struggling, just come to me. But they never come. They just sit at their desks and fail in silence.
Speaker #0
So the leaders interpret that silence as What exactly?
Speaker #1
A lack of courage.
Speaker #0
Exactly. They think, well, they're passive or they lack initiative. But let's look at the keyboard mapping again. For the leader, the open door key maps to proximity. It maps to trust. It means I am accessible.
Speaker #1
Right. It means I'm here to help. Now, switch to the Gen Z keyboard, the new keyboard. Benoit actually went and interviewed the young employees about this exact scenario. He asked them, why don't you go in? And their answer wasn't about laziness. It was about fear.
Speaker #0
Fear of the boss. But the boss just explicitly said the door is open.
Speaker #1
It's fear of the implication. To the Gen Z employee, walking into a superior's office uninvited without a clear predefined reason feels undefined. And in a corporate setting for this generation, undefined equals unsafe.
Speaker #0
Unsafe how? Like they're going to get fired.
Speaker #1
Like they're exposing a critical weakness. The internal monologue goes something like this. If I walk in there uninvited, do I look like I can't handle my workload? Am I bypassing my direct manager? Am I annoying them?
Speaker #0
Oh, wow.
Speaker #1
Am I revealing that I actually don't know what I'm doing?
Speaker #0
So the signal received isn't support at all. The signal is risk.
Speaker #1
Huge risk. The leader thinks they just threw a lifeline, but the employee feels like they're being asked to walk a tightrope without a safety net.
Speaker #0
This is so fascinating because the intention is 100% positive, but the reception is 100% negative. So if my door is always open as a broken key, Do we just stop talking to them? That seems completely counterproductive.
Speaker #1
No, you don't stop talking. You have to upgrade your operating system. You have to understand that the old keyboard boomer or Gen X model relies heavily on the implicit.
Speaker #0
The implicit.
Speaker #1
Right. Come if you need me is an implicit invitation. The new keyboard requires the explicit.
Speaker #0
Explicit. Okay. How do you make my doors open explicit without sounding like some sort of micromanaging robot?
Speaker #1
Well, you don't just say you can come see me. You send a calendar invite. You say I have. booked 15 minutes tomorrow at 10 a.m. specifically to hear what roadblocks you're facing.
Speaker #0
Ah, I see. You formalize it.
Speaker #1
You validate the interaction. By booking the time, you are sending a very clear signal. You are not bothering me. This is your dedicated time. You are safe. You change the mapping from risk back to support.
Speaker #0
It totally removes the guesswork.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And that's a massive theme in this research. Yeah. The younger generation, generally speaking, heavily distrust ambiguity in the workplace. They want the rules of engagement written down.
Speaker #0
Okay, I hear that. And the calendar invite makes total sense in practice. But I have to ask the why question here, because I can hear some of our listeners, especially the older ones, thinking, wow, that sounds like a lot of hand-holding. Why are they so risk-averse?
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Why do they need a calendar invite just to talk to a boss? Why can't they just knock?
Speaker #1
That is the million-dollar question. Is it just that they're fragile? Or is there something... deep and structural going on. The expert shifts the conversation here to something he calls the archaeology of the promise.
Speaker #0
The archaeology of the promise. That sounds like we're digging up ruins.
Speaker #1
We are. We're digging up the ruins of the old workplace deal. If we want to understand why the keyboard changed, we have to look at the history that built the Gen X keyboard in the first place.
Speaker #0
Okay. So what was the terms of this old deal?
Speaker #1
The working world that people over 40 grew up in was governed by a massive invisible contract. The source calls it Subordination for protection.
Speaker #0
Subordination for protection. Break that down for us. What was the actual trade being made?
Speaker #1
It was a very coherent system. You, the employee, gave the institution your time, your obedience, your conformity. You accepted the friction in your early years. You made the coffee. You waited your turn. You didn't question the boss.
Speaker #0
You paid your dues. That's the phrase we always use.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You paid your dues. And in exchange, the institution gave you a horizon. They guaranteed a linear career. Your salary rose reliably with age. You had safety. You could buy a house on a single income.
Speaker #0
There's a metaphor in the source that compares experience to real estate, right?
Speaker #1
Yes. It says experience was an asset that appreciated over time, exactly like real estate. The longer you stayed, the safer you were. So subordination made absolute sense. It was an investment. You put up with the friction today because you knew it would pay off in 10 years.
Speaker #0
But that world, I mean, looking around at the economy today, does that world even exist anymore?
Speaker #1
And that is the absolute crux of the issue. That world is gone. But the leaders today are often deeply nostalgic for that model. They think, well, I paid my dues. Why won't they? They aren't just power-hungry managers. They are mourning a time when the future was a promise, not a threat.
Speaker #0
So they're operating on memory.
Speaker #1
Yes. But Gen Z, they're walking into the ruins of that contract. They didn't see the promise. They saw the betrayal.
Speaker #0
What do you mean by betrayal?
Speaker #1
Think about what they watched growing up. They saw their parents, Gen X, play by the rules. They saw them submit, work late, be incredibly loyal to the company. And then what happened in 2008? Or during corporate restructuring? Or COVID?
Speaker #0
They saw them get laid off.
Speaker #1
They saw them get downsized at 50 because they were suddenly too expensive. They saw that experience wasn't treated like appreciating real estate at all. The source says it was treated like obsolete software.
Speaker #0
That is a brutal shift. From real estate to obsolete software.
Speaker #1
It changes everything about the math. If you know that loyalty doesn't buy you safety, then paying your dues isn't an investment anymore. It's just suffering.
Speaker #0
It's a bad deal.
Speaker #1
From their perspective, yes. So... This leads us to what I think is the most provocative part of the research. We love to label Gen Z. We call them rebels. Yeah. We call them disruptors. We say they want to brun down the system.
Speaker #0
Right. The activist employee who wants to change the company values before they've even learned how to use the office printer.
Speaker #1
Van Kallenberg says that is the total romantic misreading of the situation. Yeah. They aren't rebels. They aren't trying to kill the king.
Speaker #0
So if they aren't rebels, what are they?
Speaker #1
They are auditors.
Speaker #0
Auditors. Like tax accountants? That is not the sexy revolutionary image I had in mind.
Speaker #1
But think about the distinction. It's huge. A critic or a rebel judges your morals. They say what you are doing is ethically wrong. An auditor doesn't care about your morals. An auditor checks your math.
Speaker #0
Numbers don't add up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. When an auditor looks at a company's books and sees a bankrupt account, they don't cry. They don't start a revolution in the streets. And they certainly don't work for free to try and fix it.
Speaker #0
No, they just refuse to sign off.
Speaker #1
They simply withdraw their investment. So when we see Gen Z quiet quitting or job hopping every 18 months or refusing to do overtime without extra pay, that isn't rebellion. That is an audit.
Speaker #0
It's a math check.
Speaker #1
It's cold economic logic. They look at the box labeled future promises, that box that used to hold pensions and stability, and they see that the box is empty.
Speaker #0
The box is empty. That's haunting.
Speaker #1
If the institution can no longer guarantee the long term, then sacrificing the short term is entirely irrational. Why would I suffer through paying my dues today for a payoff in 20 years if I know, statistically speaking, that payoff isn't coming?
Speaker #0
It's like investing in a stock that you know is going to crash. You'd be an idiot to buy it.
Speaker #1
Precisely. So offering blind loyalty isn't a virtue anymore. It's a risk, a massive financial and emotional risk. Reframing the friction this way changes everything. It's not destruction. It's a rational withdrawal from a deal that makes no economic sense.
Speaker #0
This really reframes the whole entitlement argument. Because managers feel this resistance, this no to overtime, or this demand for immediate raises. And they take it so personally, they think, these kids don't respect me.
Speaker #1
But the auditor isn't attacking you. The auditor is just showing you the spreadsheet. They are saying, you are asking for level 10 loyalty, but you are only offering level 2 security. The math doesn't work. I'm out.
Speaker #0
It's strictly business.
Speaker #1
It is. And honestly, it's probably the most rational response to the modern economy. The source puts it beautifully. The contract wasn't betrayed. It expired.
Speaker #0
You cannot renew an expired contract with old promises.
Speaker #1
You really can't. And that's a tough pill for leaders to swallow because we want to believe we can still offer that safety. But unless you can literally guarantee they'll have a job in 20 years, you can't ask them to act like it.
Speaker #0
So synthesizing all of this, where does that leave us? Because we still have to get work done. We still have to run companies. If the old contract of subordination for protection is dead and the auditors are checking the math. How do we actually bridge the gap? Do we just give up?
Speaker #1
No, you definitely don't give up. You go back to the keyboard, you stop relying on the implicit. The source actually mentions a solution framework called the SINEL code.
Speaker #0
SINEL sounds like a secret spy agency.
Speaker #1
It does, but we don't even need to unpack the whole acronym letter by letter today. The core philosophy is what matters. You have to rebuild trust through explicit signals. You replace blind trust with verified trust.
Speaker #0
Verified trust. What does that actually look like in a Tuesday morning meeting?
Speaker #1
It means you stop selling a vague future and start negotiating the present. You don't say, work hard and good things will happen eventually. That's a bad check. That bounces with an auditor.
Speaker #0
So what do you say instead?
Speaker #1
You say, if you deliver Project X by Friday, here is the specific outcome Y that will happen on Monday. Maybe it's a day off. Maybe it's dedicated time to learn a new skill. Maybe it's taking the lead on the next pitch.
Speaker #0
You dramatically shorten the feedback loop.
Speaker #1
You make the transaction clear and explicit. The auditor needs to see the return on investment of their effort in real time.
Speaker #0
It sounds like it forces leaders to be, well, better leaders, more accountable to their own words.
Speaker #1
It forces absolute clarity. Saying my door is open is lazy leadership on the old keyboard. Booking a 15-minute blockage removal session is active leadership on the new keyboard. It's harder? Yes. But it's the only way to clear the error on the screen.
Speaker #0
And it creates trust because you're actually delivering on what you said right now rather than promising something for 2035.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You build a track record. You prove to the auditor that your math actually works.
Speaker #0
It goes all the way back to the airport in Japan, the two-handed business card. It feels awkward at first. It feels a bit performative. But if you do it, you bridge the gap.
Speaker #1
You stop being the elephant in the china shop. You show respect for their reality. And when you do that... you might find that these auditors are actually incredibly effective employees. They're fast, they're pragmatic, and they won't let you run your team on delusion.
Speaker #0
They might actually save us from our own bad math.
Speaker #1
They just might.
Speaker #0
This has been such a refreshing way to look at this topic. It takes the emotion completely out of it. It's not about kids these days having a bad attitude. It's about history and economics and translation errors.
Speaker #1
And recognizing that the author isn't your enemy. They are just the messenger. And usually, the message is one the institution desperately needs to hear.
Speaker #0
So as we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you, the listener, with a thought to mull over. We've established that the old contract subordination for protection is dead. The box is empty.
Speaker #1
It's definitely not refilling itself.
Speaker #0
So here is the provocative question you need to ask yourself, whether you are a CEO, a middle manager, or just someone trying to navigate this new landscape. If you can't offer guaranteed safety anymore, what is the new deal?
Speaker #1
That's the real challenge. If you can't promise a job for life, what is the new currency of value you can offer to get the best out of this auditor generation? Is it radical flexibility? Is it rapid skill acquisition? Is it pure autonomy?
Speaker #0
Whatever it is, you have to make it explicit because the auditors are watching. They're checking the math and they aren't accepting IOUs anymore. No, they certainly are not.
Speaker #1
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. Good luck with your audit and we'll see you next time.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Embed

You may also like

Description

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Deep Dive. I want to start today with something you've probably seen, especially if you manage or, you know, work with younger people. Imagine for a second that you have just landed in an airport in Japan. You step out of the terminal, you've got your bags, and immediately, before you even look at a sign, you feel it.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's a physical shift, isn't it? Like, the volume drops, the rhythm of the crowd is entirely near.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You are in a different world. And you realize very quickly that the rules you operate by back home, you know, the default settings of your social behavior, they just don't apply here.
Speaker #1
Right. There's that famous example of the business card. I mean, in the U.S. or Europe, you might slide a card across a table while you're checking a text message. It's super casual. But in Japan, that's practically an insult. You have to hand it over with two hands. You bow. The local receives it and treats it like a precious manuscript.
Speaker #0
And if you don't do that, You aren't just quirky. You are the absolute elephant in the china shop. But here's the thing. When we travel, we accept that.
Speaker #1
We do.
Speaker #0
We slow down. We watch the locals. We activate this adaptation reflex to survive socially because, well, we know we are the foreigner.
Speaker #1
But then you fly home.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
You walk into your office on Monday morning. You sit down across from a 22-year-old colleague. And that adaptation reflex, it just vanishes.
Speaker #0
Because we assume that just because we speak the same language... And, you know, we share the same office snacks. We must be inhabiting the same world.
Speaker #1
Which, according to the research we're diving into today, is a complete illusion. We're looking at the work of Gen Z specialist Benoit van Kouwenberge. And his thesis is startlingly simple, but really heavy. He says every generation is a foreign country.
Speaker #0
Every generation is a foreign country. It's a catchy line and I get the sentiment. But I do have to push back a little right at the start of this deep. deep dive. Is it really a foreign country or are we just dealing with the standard, you know, kids these days friction that happens literally every 20 years?
Speaker #1
That's totally fair.
Speaker #0
I mean, didn't the boomers hate the millennials? Didn't the greatest generation hate the boomers?
Speaker #1
That's exactly the skepticism we need to start with. And you're right. Intergenerational friction is as old a time. I mean, Aristotle complained about the youth, but Van Kouwenberg argues this isn't just about taste. It's not like they prefer TikTok and you prefer email.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We are looking at a translation error, a systemic breakdown in how meaning is actually conveyed.
Speaker #0
So we're not here to just bash lazy kids.
Speaker #1
No, absolutely not.
Speaker #0
And we're not here to bash out-of-touch bosses either.
Speaker #1
Definitely not. If you leave this deep dive thinking one side is right and the other is wrong, we really haven't done our job. We need to look at the machinery beneath the conflict. And to do that, we have to talk about keyboards.
Speaker #0
Right, the keyboard theory. I read this in the source materials, and I have to admit, it took me a minute to wrap my head around it.
Speaker #1
It's a bit abstract at first.
Speaker #0
It is. But once it clicked, it honestly explained about 90% of the awkward meetings I've had in the last year.
Speaker #1
It's a really powerful visual. So let's set the scene. Imagine a Gen X leader. Let's call him Dave and a Gen Z employee. Let's call her Sarah. They're sitting across from each other. They both have laptops open, and the keyboards look absolutely identical.
Speaker #0
Same QWERTY layout.
Speaker #1
Exactly. The enter key. is in the exact same spot.
Speaker #0
So naturally, Dave assumes they are playing the exact same instrument.
Speaker #1
Right. He thinks I press A, she sees A.
Speaker #0
Oh.
Speaker #1
But the mapping, the actual software underneath that connects the physical key to the screen is completely different.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
Let's take a specific key from the research. Let's say Dave presses the key marked hierarchy.
Speaker #0
Hierarchy. Now, for a Gen X leader or a boomer, that usually maps to something positive, right?
Speaker #1
Usually, yes. On Dave's screen, hierarchy displays his efficiency. It means structure. It means clarity. It means I know exactly who to go to so we can get this task done fast.
Speaker #0
Right. It's the org chart. It's just how things work.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But Sarah, she presses that exact same physical key hierarchy, but her internal software maps it to something totally different. On her screen, hierarchy displays as opacity or slowness.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Or even gatekeeping.
Speaker #0
That is a massive disconnect. So one person is literally asking for structure and the other person hears. bureaucracy.
Speaker #1
And neither of them realizes it. That's the Tower of Babel effect right there. Everyone believes they are speaking clearly. Dave says, we need more hierarchy on this project, thinking he is solving a chaos problem.
Speaker #0
And Sarah hears, we need to make this slower and hide information from you.
Speaker #1
Precisely. And then Dave gets frustrated because Sarah resists. And Sarah gets frustrated because Dave seems obsessed with red tape.
Speaker #0
They're typing on different keyboards, getting entirely different outputs. But they're blaming each other for the typos.
Speaker #1
That is the perfect way to put it. No one has stopped to translate the keystrokes.
Speaker #0
But is this just about abstract concepts like hierarchy? I mean, does this happen with day-to-day stuff? Because I feel like I'm pretty clear when I give direct instructions.
Speaker #1
Oh, it happens with the most well-intentioned phrases in the corporate dictionary. In fact, sometimes the nicer you try to be, the worse the translation error actually is. Let's look at a practical, real-world scenario from Van Kouwenberge's consulting work. Let's talk about the open door policy.
Speaker #0
Oh, no. My door is always open. I say this. I have definitely said this. It's like the standard good boss line.
Speaker #1
It is. It's supposed to be the ultimate management olive branch. Ben Kauenberg talks about consulting for these executives who were literally paring their hair out over this.
Speaker #0
What were they saying?
Speaker #1
They were telling him, I tell my team constantly, my door is open. If you're struggling, just come to me. But they never come. They just sit at their desks and fail in silence.
Speaker #0
So the leaders interpret that silence as What exactly?
Speaker #1
A lack of courage.
Speaker #0
Exactly. They think, well, they're passive or they lack initiative. But let's look at the keyboard mapping again. For the leader, the open door key maps to proximity. It maps to trust. It means I am accessible.
Speaker #1
Right. It means I'm here to help. Now, switch to the Gen Z keyboard, the new keyboard. Benoit actually went and interviewed the young employees about this exact scenario. He asked them, why don't you go in? And their answer wasn't about laziness. It was about fear.
Speaker #0
Fear of the boss. But the boss just explicitly said the door is open.
Speaker #1
It's fear of the implication. To the Gen Z employee, walking into a superior's office uninvited without a clear predefined reason feels undefined. And in a corporate setting for this generation, undefined equals unsafe.
Speaker #0
Unsafe how? Like they're going to get fired.
Speaker #1
Like they're exposing a critical weakness. The internal monologue goes something like this. If I walk in there uninvited, do I look like I can't handle my workload? Am I bypassing my direct manager? Am I annoying them?
Speaker #0
Oh, wow.
Speaker #1
Am I revealing that I actually don't know what I'm doing?
Speaker #0
So the signal received isn't support at all. The signal is risk.
Speaker #1
Huge risk. The leader thinks they just threw a lifeline, but the employee feels like they're being asked to walk a tightrope without a safety net.
Speaker #0
This is so fascinating because the intention is 100% positive, but the reception is 100% negative. So if my door is always open as a broken key, Do we just stop talking to them? That seems completely counterproductive.
Speaker #1
No, you don't stop talking. You have to upgrade your operating system. You have to understand that the old keyboard boomer or Gen X model relies heavily on the implicit.
Speaker #0
The implicit.
Speaker #1
Right. Come if you need me is an implicit invitation. The new keyboard requires the explicit.
Speaker #0
Explicit. Okay. How do you make my doors open explicit without sounding like some sort of micromanaging robot?
Speaker #1
Well, you don't just say you can come see me. You send a calendar invite. You say I have. booked 15 minutes tomorrow at 10 a.m. specifically to hear what roadblocks you're facing.
Speaker #0
Ah, I see. You formalize it.
Speaker #1
You validate the interaction. By booking the time, you are sending a very clear signal. You are not bothering me. This is your dedicated time. You are safe. You change the mapping from risk back to support.
Speaker #0
It totally removes the guesswork.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And that's a massive theme in this research. Yeah. The younger generation, generally speaking, heavily distrust ambiguity in the workplace. They want the rules of engagement written down.
Speaker #0
Okay, I hear that. And the calendar invite makes total sense in practice. But I have to ask the why question here, because I can hear some of our listeners, especially the older ones, thinking, wow, that sounds like a lot of hand-holding. Why are they so risk-averse?
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Why do they need a calendar invite just to talk to a boss? Why can't they just knock?
Speaker #1
That is the million-dollar question. Is it just that they're fragile? Or is there something... deep and structural going on. The expert shifts the conversation here to something he calls the archaeology of the promise.
Speaker #0
The archaeology of the promise. That sounds like we're digging up ruins.
Speaker #1
We are. We're digging up the ruins of the old workplace deal. If we want to understand why the keyboard changed, we have to look at the history that built the Gen X keyboard in the first place.
Speaker #0
Okay. So what was the terms of this old deal?
Speaker #1
The working world that people over 40 grew up in was governed by a massive invisible contract. The source calls it Subordination for protection.
Speaker #0
Subordination for protection. Break that down for us. What was the actual trade being made?
Speaker #1
It was a very coherent system. You, the employee, gave the institution your time, your obedience, your conformity. You accepted the friction in your early years. You made the coffee. You waited your turn. You didn't question the boss.
Speaker #0
You paid your dues. That's the phrase we always use.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You paid your dues. And in exchange, the institution gave you a horizon. They guaranteed a linear career. Your salary rose reliably with age. You had safety. You could buy a house on a single income.
Speaker #0
There's a metaphor in the source that compares experience to real estate, right?
Speaker #1
Yes. It says experience was an asset that appreciated over time, exactly like real estate. The longer you stayed, the safer you were. So subordination made absolute sense. It was an investment. You put up with the friction today because you knew it would pay off in 10 years.
Speaker #0
But that world, I mean, looking around at the economy today, does that world even exist anymore?
Speaker #1
And that is the absolute crux of the issue. That world is gone. But the leaders today are often deeply nostalgic for that model. They think, well, I paid my dues. Why won't they? They aren't just power-hungry managers. They are mourning a time when the future was a promise, not a threat.
Speaker #0
So they're operating on memory.
Speaker #1
Yes. But Gen Z, they're walking into the ruins of that contract. They didn't see the promise. They saw the betrayal.
Speaker #0
What do you mean by betrayal?
Speaker #1
Think about what they watched growing up. They saw their parents, Gen X, play by the rules. They saw them submit, work late, be incredibly loyal to the company. And then what happened in 2008? Or during corporate restructuring? Or COVID?
Speaker #0
They saw them get laid off.
Speaker #1
They saw them get downsized at 50 because they were suddenly too expensive. They saw that experience wasn't treated like appreciating real estate at all. The source says it was treated like obsolete software.
Speaker #0
That is a brutal shift. From real estate to obsolete software.
Speaker #1
It changes everything about the math. If you know that loyalty doesn't buy you safety, then paying your dues isn't an investment anymore. It's just suffering.
Speaker #0
It's a bad deal.
Speaker #1
From their perspective, yes. So... This leads us to what I think is the most provocative part of the research. We love to label Gen Z. We call them rebels. Yeah. We call them disruptors. We say they want to brun down the system.
Speaker #0
Right. The activist employee who wants to change the company values before they've even learned how to use the office printer.
Speaker #1
Van Kallenberg says that is the total romantic misreading of the situation. Yeah. They aren't rebels. They aren't trying to kill the king.
Speaker #0
So if they aren't rebels, what are they?
Speaker #1
They are auditors.
Speaker #0
Auditors. Like tax accountants? That is not the sexy revolutionary image I had in mind.
Speaker #1
But think about the distinction. It's huge. A critic or a rebel judges your morals. They say what you are doing is ethically wrong. An auditor doesn't care about your morals. An auditor checks your math.
Speaker #0
Numbers don't add up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. When an auditor looks at a company's books and sees a bankrupt account, they don't cry. They don't start a revolution in the streets. And they certainly don't work for free to try and fix it.
Speaker #0
No, they just refuse to sign off.
Speaker #1
They simply withdraw their investment. So when we see Gen Z quiet quitting or job hopping every 18 months or refusing to do overtime without extra pay, that isn't rebellion. That is an audit.
Speaker #0
It's a math check.
Speaker #1
It's cold economic logic. They look at the box labeled future promises, that box that used to hold pensions and stability, and they see that the box is empty.
Speaker #0
The box is empty. That's haunting.
Speaker #1
If the institution can no longer guarantee the long term, then sacrificing the short term is entirely irrational. Why would I suffer through paying my dues today for a payoff in 20 years if I know, statistically speaking, that payoff isn't coming?
Speaker #0
It's like investing in a stock that you know is going to crash. You'd be an idiot to buy it.
Speaker #1
Precisely. So offering blind loyalty isn't a virtue anymore. It's a risk, a massive financial and emotional risk. Reframing the friction this way changes everything. It's not destruction. It's a rational withdrawal from a deal that makes no economic sense.
Speaker #0
This really reframes the whole entitlement argument. Because managers feel this resistance, this no to overtime, or this demand for immediate raises. And they take it so personally, they think, these kids don't respect me.
Speaker #1
But the auditor isn't attacking you. The auditor is just showing you the spreadsheet. They are saying, you are asking for level 10 loyalty, but you are only offering level 2 security. The math doesn't work. I'm out.
Speaker #0
It's strictly business.
Speaker #1
It is. And honestly, it's probably the most rational response to the modern economy. The source puts it beautifully. The contract wasn't betrayed. It expired.
Speaker #0
You cannot renew an expired contract with old promises.
Speaker #1
You really can't. And that's a tough pill for leaders to swallow because we want to believe we can still offer that safety. But unless you can literally guarantee they'll have a job in 20 years, you can't ask them to act like it.
Speaker #0
So synthesizing all of this, where does that leave us? Because we still have to get work done. We still have to run companies. If the old contract of subordination for protection is dead and the auditors are checking the math. How do we actually bridge the gap? Do we just give up?
Speaker #1
No, you definitely don't give up. You go back to the keyboard, you stop relying on the implicit. The source actually mentions a solution framework called the SINEL code.
Speaker #0
SINEL sounds like a secret spy agency.
Speaker #1
It does, but we don't even need to unpack the whole acronym letter by letter today. The core philosophy is what matters. You have to rebuild trust through explicit signals. You replace blind trust with verified trust.
Speaker #0
Verified trust. What does that actually look like in a Tuesday morning meeting?
Speaker #1
It means you stop selling a vague future and start negotiating the present. You don't say, work hard and good things will happen eventually. That's a bad check. That bounces with an auditor.
Speaker #0
So what do you say instead?
Speaker #1
You say, if you deliver Project X by Friday, here is the specific outcome Y that will happen on Monday. Maybe it's a day off. Maybe it's dedicated time to learn a new skill. Maybe it's taking the lead on the next pitch.
Speaker #0
You dramatically shorten the feedback loop.
Speaker #1
You make the transaction clear and explicit. The auditor needs to see the return on investment of their effort in real time.
Speaker #0
It sounds like it forces leaders to be, well, better leaders, more accountable to their own words.
Speaker #1
It forces absolute clarity. Saying my door is open is lazy leadership on the old keyboard. Booking a 15-minute blockage removal session is active leadership on the new keyboard. It's harder? Yes. But it's the only way to clear the error on the screen.
Speaker #0
And it creates trust because you're actually delivering on what you said right now rather than promising something for 2035.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You build a track record. You prove to the auditor that your math actually works.
Speaker #0
It goes all the way back to the airport in Japan, the two-handed business card. It feels awkward at first. It feels a bit performative. But if you do it, you bridge the gap.
Speaker #1
You stop being the elephant in the china shop. You show respect for their reality. And when you do that... you might find that these auditors are actually incredibly effective employees. They're fast, they're pragmatic, and they won't let you run your team on delusion.
Speaker #0
They might actually save us from our own bad math.
Speaker #1
They just might.
Speaker #0
This has been such a refreshing way to look at this topic. It takes the emotion completely out of it. It's not about kids these days having a bad attitude. It's about history and economics and translation errors.
Speaker #1
And recognizing that the author isn't your enemy. They are just the messenger. And usually, the message is one the institution desperately needs to hear.
Speaker #0
So as we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you, the listener, with a thought to mull over. We've established that the old contract subordination for protection is dead. The box is empty.
Speaker #1
It's definitely not refilling itself.
Speaker #0
So here is the provocative question you need to ask yourself, whether you are a CEO, a middle manager, or just someone trying to navigate this new landscape. If you can't offer guaranteed safety anymore, what is the new deal?
Speaker #1
That's the real challenge. If you can't promise a job for life, what is the new currency of value you can offer to get the best out of this auditor generation? Is it radical flexibility? Is it rapid skill acquisition? Is it pure autonomy?
Speaker #0
Whatever it is, you have to make it explicit because the auditors are watching. They're checking the math and they aren't accepting IOUs anymore. No, they certainly are not.
Speaker #1
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. Good luck with your audit and we'll see you next time.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Description

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Transcription

Speaker #0
Welcome to the Deep Dive. I want to start today with something you've probably seen, especially if you manage or, you know, work with younger people. Imagine for a second that you have just landed in an airport in Japan. You step out of the terminal, you've got your bags, and immediately, before you even look at a sign, you feel it.
Speaker #1
Yeah, it's a physical shift, isn't it? Like, the volume drops, the rhythm of the crowd is entirely near.
Speaker #0
Exactly. You are in a different world. And you realize very quickly that the rules you operate by back home, you know, the default settings of your social behavior, they just don't apply here.
Speaker #1
Right. There's that famous example of the business card. I mean, in the U.S. or Europe, you might slide a card across a table while you're checking a text message. It's super casual. But in Japan, that's practically an insult. You have to hand it over with two hands. You bow. The local receives it and treats it like a precious manuscript.
Speaker #0
And if you don't do that, You aren't just quirky. You are the absolute elephant in the china shop. But here's the thing. When we travel, we accept that.
Speaker #1
We do.
Speaker #0
We slow down. We watch the locals. We activate this adaptation reflex to survive socially because, well, we know we are the foreigner.
Speaker #1
But then you fly home.
Speaker #0
Right.
Speaker #1
You walk into your office on Monday morning. You sit down across from a 22-year-old colleague. And that adaptation reflex, it just vanishes.
Speaker #0
Because we assume that just because we speak the same language... And, you know, we share the same office snacks. We must be inhabiting the same world.
Speaker #1
Which, according to the research we're diving into today, is a complete illusion. We're looking at the work of Gen Z specialist Benoit van Kouwenberge. And his thesis is startlingly simple, but really heavy. He says every generation is a foreign country.
Speaker #0
Every generation is a foreign country. It's a catchy line and I get the sentiment. But I do have to push back a little right at the start of this deep. deep dive. Is it really a foreign country or are we just dealing with the standard, you know, kids these days friction that happens literally every 20 years?
Speaker #1
That's totally fair.
Speaker #0
I mean, didn't the boomers hate the millennials? Didn't the greatest generation hate the boomers?
Speaker #1
That's exactly the skepticism we need to start with. And you're right. Intergenerational friction is as old a time. I mean, Aristotle complained about the youth, but Van Kouwenberg argues this isn't just about taste. It's not like they prefer TikTok and you prefer email.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
We are looking at a translation error, a systemic breakdown in how meaning is actually conveyed.
Speaker #0
So we're not here to just bash lazy kids.
Speaker #1
No, absolutely not.
Speaker #0
And we're not here to bash out-of-touch bosses either.
Speaker #1
Definitely not. If you leave this deep dive thinking one side is right and the other is wrong, we really haven't done our job. We need to look at the machinery beneath the conflict. And to do that, we have to talk about keyboards.
Speaker #0
Right, the keyboard theory. I read this in the source materials, and I have to admit, it took me a minute to wrap my head around it.
Speaker #1
It's a bit abstract at first.
Speaker #0
It is. But once it clicked, it honestly explained about 90% of the awkward meetings I've had in the last year.
Speaker #1
It's a really powerful visual. So let's set the scene. Imagine a Gen X leader. Let's call him Dave and a Gen Z employee. Let's call her Sarah. They're sitting across from each other. They both have laptops open, and the keyboards look absolutely identical.
Speaker #0
Same QWERTY layout.
Speaker #1
Exactly. The enter key. is in the exact same spot.
Speaker #0
So naturally, Dave assumes they are playing the exact same instrument.
Speaker #1
Right. He thinks I press A, she sees A.
Speaker #0
Oh.
Speaker #1
But the mapping, the actual software underneath that connects the physical key to the screen is completely different.
Speaker #0
Okay.
Speaker #1
Let's take a specific key from the research. Let's say Dave presses the key marked hierarchy.
Speaker #0
Hierarchy. Now, for a Gen X leader or a boomer, that usually maps to something positive, right?
Speaker #1
Usually, yes. On Dave's screen, hierarchy displays his efficiency. It means structure. It means clarity. It means I know exactly who to go to so we can get this task done fast.
Speaker #0
Right. It's the org chart. It's just how things work.
Speaker #1
Exactly. But Sarah, she presses that exact same physical key hierarchy, but her internal software maps it to something totally different. On her screen, hierarchy displays as opacity or slowness.
Speaker #0
Wow.
Speaker #1
Or even gatekeeping.
Speaker #0
That is a massive disconnect. So one person is literally asking for structure and the other person hears. bureaucracy.
Speaker #1
And neither of them realizes it. That's the Tower of Babel effect right there. Everyone believes they are speaking clearly. Dave says, we need more hierarchy on this project, thinking he is solving a chaos problem.
Speaker #0
And Sarah hears, we need to make this slower and hide information from you.
Speaker #1
Precisely. And then Dave gets frustrated because Sarah resists. And Sarah gets frustrated because Dave seems obsessed with red tape.
Speaker #0
They're typing on different keyboards, getting entirely different outputs. But they're blaming each other for the typos.
Speaker #1
That is the perfect way to put it. No one has stopped to translate the keystrokes.
Speaker #0
But is this just about abstract concepts like hierarchy? I mean, does this happen with day-to-day stuff? Because I feel like I'm pretty clear when I give direct instructions.
Speaker #1
Oh, it happens with the most well-intentioned phrases in the corporate dictionary. In fact, sometimes the nicer you try to be, the worse the translation error actually is. Let's look at a practical, real-world scenario from Van Kouwenberge's consulting work. Let's talk about the open door policy.
Speaker #0
Oh, no. My door is always open. I say this. I have definitely said this. It's like the standard good boss line.
Speaker #1
It is. It's supposed to be the ultimate management olive branch. Ben Kauenberg talks about consulting for these executives who were literally paring their hair out over this.
Speaker #0
What were they saying?
Speaker #1
They were telling him, I tell my team constantly, my door is open. If you're struggling, just come to me. But they never come. They just sit at their desks and fail in silence.
Speaker #0
So the leaders interpret that silence as What exactly?
Speaker #1
A lack of courage.
Speaker #0
Exactly. They think, well, they're passive or they lack initiative. But let's look at the keyboard mapping again. For the leader, the open door key maps to proximity. It maps to trust. It means I am accessible.
Speaker #1
Right. It means I'm here to help. Now, switch to the Gen Z keyboard, the new keyboard. Benoit actually went and interviewed the young employees about this exact scenario. He asked them, why don't you go in? And their answer wasn't about laziness. It was about fear.
Speaker #0
Fear of the boss. But the boss just explicitly said the door is open.
Speaker #1
It's fear of the implication. To the Gen Z employee, walking into a superior's office uninvited without a clear predefined reason feels undefined. And in a corporate setting for this generation, undefined equals unsafe.
Speaker #0
Unsafe how? Like they're going to get fired.
Speaker #1
Like they're exposing a critical weakness. The internal monologue goes something like this. If I walk in there uninvited, do I look like I can't handle my workload? Am I bypassing my direct manager? Am I annoying them?
Speaker #0
Oh, wow.
Speaker #1
Am I revealing that I actually don't know what I'm doing?
Speaker #0
So the signal received isn't support at all. The signal is risk.
Speaker #1
Huge risk. The leader thinks they just threw a lifeline, but the employee feels like they're being asked to walk a tightrope without a safety net.
Speaker #0
This is so fascinating because the intention is 100% positive, but the reception is 100% negative. So if my door is always open as a broken key, Do we just stop talking to them? That seems completely counterproductive.
Speaker #1
No, you don't stop talking. You have to upgrade your operating system. You have to understand that the old keyboard boomer or Gen X model relies heavily on the implicit.
Speaker #0
The implicit.
Speaker #1
Right. Come if you need me is an implicit invitation. The new keyboard requires the explicit.
Speaker #0
Explicit. Okay. How do you make my doors open explicit without sounding like some sort of micromanaging robot?
Speaker #1
Well, you don't just say you can come see me. You send a calendar invite. You say I have. booked 15 minutes tomorrow at 10 a.m. specifically to hear what roadblocks you're facing.
Speaker #0
Ah, I see. You formalize it.
Speaker #1
You validate the interaction. By booking the time, you are sending a very clear signal. You are not bothering me. This is your dedicated time. You are safe. You change the mapping from risk back to support.
Speaker #0
It totally removes the guesswork.
Speaker #1
Exactly. And that's a massive theme in this research. Yeah. The younger generation, generally speaking, heavily distrust ambiguity in the workplace. They want the rules of engagement written down.
Speaker #0
Okay, I hear that. And the calendar invite makes total sense in practice. But I have to ask the why question here, because I can hear some of our listeners, especially the older ones, thinking, wow, that sounds like a lot of hand-holding. Why are they so risk-averse?
Speaker #1
Right.
Speaker #0
Why do they need a calendar invite just to talk to a boss? Why can't they just knock?
Speaker #1
That is the million-dollar question. Is it just that they're fragile? Or is there something... deep and structural going on. The expert shifts the conversation here to something he calls the archaeology of the promise.
Speaker #0
The archaeology of the promise. That sounds like we're digging up ruins.
Speaker #1
We are. We're digging up the ruins of the old workplace deal. If we want to understand why the keyboard changed, we have to look at the history that built the Gen X keyboard in the first place.
Speaker #0
Okay. So what was the terms of this old deal?
Speaker #1
The working world that people over 40 grew up in was governed by a massive invisible contract. The source calls it Subordination for protection.
Speaker #0
Subordination for protection. Break that down for us. What was the actual trade being made?
Speaker #1
It was a very coherent system. You, the employee, gave the institution your time, your obedience, your conformity. You accepted the friction in your early years. You made the coffee. You waited your turn. You didn't question the boss.
Speaker #0
You paid your dues. That's the phrase we always use.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You paid your dues. And in exchange, the institution gave you a horizon. They guaranteed a linear career. Your salary rose reliably with age. You had safety. You could buy a house on a single income.
Speaker #0
There's a metaphor in the source that compares experience to real estate, right?
Speaker #1
Yes. It says experience was an asset that appreciated over time, exactly like real estate. The longer you stayed, the safer you were. So subordination made absolute sense. It was an investment. You put up with the friction today because you knew it would pay off in 10 years.
Speaker #0
But that world, I mean, looking around at the economy today, does that world even exist anymore?
Speaker #1
And that is the absolute crux of the issue. That world is gone. But the leaders today are often deeply nostalgic for that model. They think, well, I paid my dues. Why won't they? They aren't just power-hungry managers. They are mourning a time when the future was a promise, not a threat.
Speaker #0
So they're operating on memory.
Speaker #1
Yes. But Gen Z, they're walking into the ruins of that contract. They didn't see the promise. They saw the betrayal.
Speaker #0
What do you mean by betrayal?
Speaker #1
Think about what they watched growing up. They saw their parents, Gen X, play by the rules. They saw them submit, work late, be incredibly loyal to the company. And then what happened in 2008? Or during corporate restructuring? Or COVID?
Speaker #0
They saw them get laid off.
Speaker #1
They saw them get downsized at 50 because they were suddenly too expensive. They saw that experience wasn't treated like appreciating real estate at all. The source says it was treated like obsolete software.
Speaker #0
That is a brutal shift. From real estate to obsolete software.
Speaker #1
It changes everything about the math. If you know that loyalty doesn't buy you safety, then paying your dues isn't an investment anymore. It's just suffering.
Speaker #0
It's a bad deal.
Speaker #1
From their perspective, yes. So... This leads us to what I think is the most provocative part of the research. We love to label Gen Z. We call them rebels. Yeah. We call them disruptors. We say they want to brun down the system.
Speaker #0
Right. The activist employee who wants to change the company values before they've even learned how to use the office printer.
Speaker #1
Van Kallenberg says that is the total romantic misreading of the situation. Yeah. They aren't rebels. They aren't trying to kill the king.
Speaker #0
So if they aren't rebels, what are they?
Speaker #1
They are auditors.
Speaker #0
Auditors. Like tax accountants? That is not the sexy revolutionary image I had in mind.
Speaker #1
But think about the distinction. It's huge. A critic or a rebel judges your morals. They say what you are doing is ethically wrong. An auditor doesn't care about your morals. An auditor checks your math.
Speaker #0
Numbers don't add up.
Speaker #1
Exactly. When an auditor looks at a company's books and sees a bankrupt account, they don't cry. They don't start a revolution in the streets. And they certainly don't work for free to try and fix it.
Speaker #0
No, they just refuse to sign off.
Speaker #1
They simply withdraw their investment. So when we see Gen Z quiet quitting or job hopping every 18 months or refusing to do overtime without extra pay, that isn't rebellion. That is an audit.
Speaker #0
It's a math check.
Speaker #1
It's cold economic logic. They look at the box labeled future promises, that box that used to hold pensions and stability, and they see that the box is empty.
Speaker #0
The box is empty. That's haunting.
Speaker #1
If the institution can no longer guarantee the long term, then sacrificing the short term is entirely irrational. Why would I suffer through paying my dues today for a payoff in 20 years if I know, statistically speaking, that payoff isn't coming?
Speaker #0
It's like investing in a stock that you know is going to crash. You'd be an idiot to buy it.
Speaker #1
Precisely. So offering blind loyalty isn't a virtue anymore. It's a risk, a massive financial and emotional risk. Reframing the friction this way changes everything. It's not destruction. It's a rational withdrawal from a deal that makes no economic sense.
Speaker #0
This really reframes the whole entitlement argument. Because managers feel this resistance, this no to overtime, or this demand for immediate raises. And they take it so personally, they think, these kids don't respect me.
Speaker #1
But the auditor isn't attacking you. The auditor is just showing you the spreadsheet. They are saying, you are asking for level 10 loyalty, but you are only offering level 2 security. The math doesn't work. I'm out.
Speaker #0
It's strictly business.
Speaker #1
It is. And honestly, it's probably the most rational response to the modern economy. The source puts it beautifully. The contract wasn't betrayed. It expired.
Speaker #0
You cannot renew an expired contract with old promises.
Speaker #1
You really can't. And that's a tough pill for leaders to swallow because we want to believe we can still offer that safety. But unless you can literally guarantee they'll have a job in 20 years, you can't ask them to act like it.
Speaker #0
So synthesizing all of this, where does that leave us? Because we still have to get work done. We still have to run companies. If the old contract of subordination for protection is dead and the auditors are checking the math. How do we actually bridge the gap? Do we just give up?
Speaker #1
No, you definitely don't give up. You go back to the keyboard, you stop relying on the implicit. The source actually mentions a solution framework called the SINEL code.
Speaker #0
SINEL sounds like a secret spy agency.
Speaker #1
It does, but we don't even need to unpack the whole acronym letter by letter today. The core philosophy is what matters. You have to rebuild trust through explicit signals. You replace blind trust with verified trust.
Speaker #0
Verified trust. What does that actually look like in a Tuesday morning meeting?
Speaker #1
It means you stop selling a vague future and start negotiating the present. You don't say, work hard and good things will happen eventually. That's a bad check. That bounces with an auditor.
Speaker #0
So what do you say instead?
Speaker #1
You say, if you deliver Project X by Friday, here is the specific outcome Y that will happen on Monday. Maybe it's a day off. Maybe it's dedicated time to learn a new skill. Maybe it's taking the lead on the next pitch.
Speaker #0
You dramatically shorten the feedback loop.
Speaker #1
You make the transaction clear and explicit. The auditor needs to see the return on investment of their effort in real time.
Speaker #0
It sounds like it forces leaders to be, well, better leaders, more accountable to their own words.
Speaker #1
It forces absolute clarity. Saying my door is open is lazy leadership on the old keyboard. Booking a 15-minute blockage removal session is active leadership on the new keyboard. It's harder? Yes. But it's the only way to clear the error on the screen.
Speaker #0
And it creates trust because you're actually delivering on what you said right now rather than promising something for 2035.
Speaker #1
Exactly. You build a track record. You prove to the auditor that your math actually works.
Speaker #0
It goes all the way back to the airport in Japan, the two-handed business card. It feels awkward at first. It feels a bit performative. But if you do it, you bridge the gap.
Speaker #1
You stop being the elephant in the china shop. You show respect for their reality. And when you do that... you might find that these auditors are actually incredibly effective employees. They're fast, they're pragmatic, and they won't let you run your team on delusion.
Speaker #0
They might actually save us from our own bad math.
Speaker #1
They just might.
Speaker #0
This has been such a refreshing way to look at this topic. It takes the emotion completely out of it. It's not about kids these days having a bad attitude. It's about history and economics and translation errors.
Speaker #1
And recognizing that the author isn't your enemy. They are just the messenger. And usually, the message is one the institution desperately needs to hear.
Speaker #0
So as we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you, the listener, with a thought to mull over. We've established that the old contract subordination for protection is dead. The box is empty.
Speaker #1
It's definitely not refilling itself.
Speaker #0
So here is the provocative question you need to ask yourself, whether you are a CEO, a middle manager, or just someone trying to navigate this new landscape. If you can't offer guaranteed safety anymore, what is the new deal?
Speaker #1
That's the real challenge. If you can't promise a job for life, what is the new currency of value you can offer to get the best out of this auditor generation? Is it radical flexibility? Is it rapid skill acquisition? Is it pure autonomy?
Speaker #0
Whatever it is, you have to make it explicit because the auditors are watching. They're checking the math and they aren't accepting IOUs anymore. No, they certainly are not.
Speaker #1
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. Good luck with your audit and we'll see you next time.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

About The Generation Z Shift: Conversations

An audio series extending the ideas behind Benoit Vancauwenberghe’s bestselling book, The Gen Z Shift: Why Today's Leaders Keep Acting on the Wrong Signals

How are Gen Z and Gen Alpha reshaping the way we work, lead, and build organizations?

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Embed