201: ‘Redefining Leadership in AEC’, with Phil Putnam

201: ‘Redefining Leadership in AEC’, with Phil Putnam

Evan Troxel: Welcome to the TRXL Podcast. I'm Evan Troxel. In recent episodes, I've been exploring the topic of leadership. I know there are a lot of leaders listening, and probably even more of you who are going to become leaders at some point, and the fact is that true leadership is, in my opinion, more important to a firm's performance than any technology, especially as we're seeing more and more important decisions being outsourced to AI for the sake of convenience.

Real leadership doesn't phone it in like that. So it's my hope that you'll really tune into the message of this episode. Today I welcome Phil Putnam. Phil is a leadership speaker, author, and former tech leader who's made it his mission to teach organizations how to truly unlock top performance from their people.

His "Give to Get" approach reframes leadership around a simple, yet profound truth. Employees don't work just to make their firm successful. They work to build the lives they desire. And when leaders understand and support that, it doesn't just change careers, it transforms entire lives.

Today we dig into why retaining great talent is financially smarter than replacing them. How firms can intentionally develop leaders instead of relying on chance and why? Understanding generational differences is critical for navigating today's workforce. Phil also shares personal stories that highlight the ripple effect of transformational leadership, how a well-led employee can experience life-changing growth that impacts not only their career trajectory, but also their confidence, their relationships, and their future.

A key theme from this conversation, which connects to many other episodes on the podcast, is the profound and often underestimated impact that great leadership can have on individuals. True leadership doesn't just get projects done. It elevates people's entire lives shaping their opportunities, mindset, and fulfillment in ways that last far beyond the workplace.

And this is especially relevant in architecture, where traditionally, poor leadership has held back countless talented professionals stunting their careers and limiting their potential for growth.

As usual, there's an extensive amount of additional information in the show notes. So be sure to check that out. You can find it directly in your podcast app for this episode if you're a paid member of TRXL+, and if you're a free member, you can find them over at the website, which is at TRXL.co, where you could also subscribe. Lastly, you can really help out the podcast by sharing the episodes with your colleagues and by commenting and sharing my LinkedIn posts.

You can also leave a comment over on YouTube and engage with me and the other listeners there. I came away from this conversation inspired to think differently about how leadership can truly change one's trajectory. And so now without further ado, I bring you my conversation with Phil Putnam. I.

Phil, welcome to the podcast. Great to have you. Great to meet you.

Phil Putnam: Thank you so much. I am really happy to be here. Yeah.

Evan Troxel: Okay. I wanna do this a little bit differently today. I want, normally we jump right into kind of your story and how you got to where you are,

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: it up because, it'll make more sense of as far as like what we wanna accomplish with this conversation,

Phil Putnam: Okay.

Evan Troxel: What's your thesis? Like? You have a, you have this idea, I, and you call it give to get.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: we can start there then work back to this point now. Like,

Phil Putnam: Sure,

Evan Troxel: get there? Right. So let's just start with what, what give to get is and, and why we're having the conversation.

Phil Putnam: sure. It's really my whole approach to leadership. Um, and so leadership, you know, between leaders and team members, that's my whole ish, my whole specialty. And it's, it's become my career now as a speaker and an author. But what it really is, is it started as kind of an expression of frustration because throughout my career, um, every manager I had, every leader I had, despite their best intentions, and I mean that genuinely, I had some really wonderful leaders that I, I had this privilege to work with and work under.

They just showed a really fundamental misunderstanding of how to motivate people's performance.

Evan Troxel: Mm

Phil Putnam: And a real misunderstanding of why we work.

Evan Troxel: mm,

Phil Putnam: And it was very much like, Hey, when you give us your best, the company will succeed or the firm will succeed, and isn't that great? And it's like, well, sure, you know, I, I care,

Evan Troxel: for some than others?

Phil Putnam: right?

I mean, I do care about my employer's success, but that's not why I work. I work to get the life I want in exchange for the work that I give.

Evan Troxel: Mm.

Phil Putnam: And so, over the years, you know, I worked in so many different roles, not in architecture. I worked primarily in tech. Um, I have the great fortune to be married to an architect, and I'll tell you a bit about that.

Um, as we talk,

Evan Troxel: for you, make it sound amazing. I and,

Phil Putnam: oh, well,

Evan Troxel: have to, I'll have to check with my wife on that one.

Phil Putnam: I can say at least, at least, I, I am in ge. I am genuinely in awe of my husband, so. Um, I, I mean that with, with, with true sincerity and with full affection. But, um, but I've worked primarily in tech and, um, and I just, you know, when I got into a place of leadership, I thought, well, I wanna just not ask people to play along, you know, with something that they don't believe in.

And so give to get is really the understanding that if you want to be the recipient of your team member's top performance and the best they have to give to your firm or to your organization, you must appeal to their number one career motivation. And that is not to make your firm successful, that is to get the life they desire.

And so, um, over the years, it, it took many different forms. You know, I, I really dug into performance, you know, performance, motivation in the context of work, um, and wrote a book about it, developed some frameworks and some methodologies just. By common sense and need, you know, when I was in various leadership roles where I had to deliver a lot of results really quickly with a limited amount of resources.

Um, but the core of it is that when we know that our job is a pathway to the life that we desire, we're gonna be fundamentally motivated to bring our best work every day. Because what we want most is being provided by, by the job situation that we have. Um, and then also it extends our tenure. And because the cost of replacing somebody is so much higher than the cost of satisfying them, um, it's in every organization's best interest to retain people who are worth retaining by giving them what they want.

As much as you can.

Evan Troxel: I I, I have so many questions. I, and I know you have, you, you've kind of watched this transformation I'm sure play out many times.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: and maybe even personally, I, I know, you know, you shared a story with me about your husband that

Phil Putnam: Hmm.

Evan Troxel: felt like that was really, really. Impactful. Right. Like, like and, and, and I don't know how, if you had a play in that at all, I mean, obviously a supportive

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: probably not like in your role as doing what you do.

Like you probably weren't engaged with the organization at that level for

Phil Putnam: No, no, not directly. I'll just tell the story. You know, it's a good way to kind of root into the conversation. So, uh, my husband, um, his name is, is Raj Karnik, and he works for Gensler, uh, in their New York City office. We live in New York City. For those who are watching the video, you're seeing our apartment behind us.

Welcome to our home. Um, and so, uh, he is currently the design manager of the JFK New Terminal One Project. So huge. Just, just tiny little, you know, aviation project.

Evan Troxel: dollars is that project.

Phil Putnam: Believe it's 6.5

Evan Troxel: Yeah, just,

Phil Putnam: is the.

Evan Troxel: billion.

Phil Putnam: the project. Right. And of course, like I'm out here like doing my little leadership talks and my cute little book, and he's like rebuilding one of the most important airports in the world.

So it definitely keeps things in perspective, which is nice. But, um, you know, he has, has worked in the architecture industry for, for a long, long time in various firms. And when he got to Gensler, you know, we, we both went into new jobs during COVID and, and they very passionately recruited him, which right.

There was a, a great compliment. And he is somebody who just naturally works hard, you know, and he doesn't really expect a lot of recognition, to be honest.

Evan Troxel: lot. A lot of architects are in

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: right?

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: kind of. It's like a natural thing, but it's also a training thing.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and, and it's also an expectation like the, the business kind of demands

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: that at up at a really high level.

Phil Putnam: Yeah. I also wanna say for context, this was when he joined Gunsler. It was around, he was in his late thirties, you know, and now in his early forties. So that point in an architect's career where you're kind of gonna either escalate or not, you know, and also the point in an architect's career where you might really start benefiting financially from an escalation if it happens.

So he, he gets into Gensler and almost immediately I just start hearing him say things when he's coming home from work that make me think, wow, I think there leaders might really, really, really be good at this.

Evan Troxel: Hmm.

Phil Putnam: just consistently, he's coming home saying, oh my gosh, guess what happened today? Guess what happened today?

And like, example, one of the things that stuck out to me most is, um, uh, he came home on a Tuesday one, this was, I don't know when it was, but it was on Tuesday. And he says, Hey, guess what? Um, the, the studio manager asked me if I wanna learn about the financial aspect of running a project, and I said, yes, of course.

I wanna learn that. Great. That's so exciting. I'm, I'm so glad they initiated. I know that's something you want. And then Thursday of that same week, so two days later, he comes home just beaming and he says, you're never gonna guess what happened. He says that studio manager poked his head out of his office today and said, Hey, I've got an hour.

Do you wanna come in and kind of go over the initial basics of running a, the finances of a project? And I looked at him and I said, do you know how rare that is?

Evan Troxel: Yeah, what I was thinking.

Phil Putnam: And he said, what? And I said,

Evan Troxel: rarity of asking, but then the rarity of the, the follow through and it happening in such a short

Phil Putnam: I know.

Evan Troxel: things. Yeah.

Phil Putnam: And he is like, well, what was rare about it? And I said, well, first of all it was volunteered and then it, and then you didn't have to chase after this person for several months

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: and then get them into a beleaguered 15 minute conversation to do something they volunteered to do.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: And so that was a real kind of another deeper level for me of, wow, these leaders, really, they are committed to developing their people and really investing in the people that they see great potential and talent in.

And then not long after that, the way that Raj talks about himself started to change and he started to say things and express levels of confidence and self-confidence and self-worth and vision for his future of his career that I honestly never knew. If I would hear come out of his mouth, now I know what he's capable of.

Like I said, I am in awe of this man, not just as a human, but also as an architect. As a professional and as a leader. Um, he is a remarkably gifted natural leader and so, but I didn't know if he would ever fully see himself in that way. And it became sort of this fun game for me to sort of float different pieces of, of language.

Like I would, I started saying to him, rod, you're a star. And just kind of wondering, am I ever going to hear this come out of his mouth as a genuine expression of what he believes about himself? And I crappy you, not, not mere weeks after. One of the times I said it, it came out of his mouth and I just was so moved by the fact that the care and the expertise that his leaders at Gensler have in people leadership have actually changed his life and then have changed our lives.

You know, they've, they've changed our relationship as a couple. They've changed our future. They, they've changed what it's like to be in our home together. You know, I, I even get a little, little teary while I'm talking about it because that's what incredible leaders can do, and I just never dreamed that I would be able to count my spouse's managers among the village of the people that care for him and that are a part of making his life better.

Like, I, I feel like I've got teammates in caring for my husband, and to be able to say that it's his leaders and several of his senior leaders as well is just a, a privilege I never thought that I would get to get to participate in.

Evan Troxel: So the way that he started bringing these, these things

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: mean, it sounds like there was a contrast to previous experience. Is that

Phil Putnam: There were. Yeah, and it's not really my place to go into those details, but I can say that, yeah, this is a definite contrast from some previous experiences.

Evan Troxel: Yeah. And so like, it is kind of dependent on the people and the, the culture and things. Right? And so

Phil Putnam: Oh, yeah.

Evan Troxel: that you, the way you're talking

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: is like, this is really an, an intentional thing that you have seen in the leaders. It sounds like a, you know, in the

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: in that. And Gensler in New York City, and maybe it's beyond that, but it sounds like, and I bring that up just because like it is, the things that you're talking about are skills that can be learned and that can be invested in

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: individuals, but by companies. By firms.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: uh, and, and so I'm, I know that that's something that, that you know a lot

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: so you, you're starting to make the case of why it

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: right? And because I think there's this, this is a choice that firms have to make and

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: have to make it for you. You could choose to invest in yourself and you could learn about these things, and you could learn what the benefits are to others and what they are to yourself,

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: really, what really what leadership is and, and what it

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: But I think it's just important to say that these are things that can be learned. These aren't just innate in people,

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and, and showing that interest. Like, like when, when I was at my last firm, we actually had a. a group of emerging leaders that focused on learning about leadership. And we would pick who came in to speak to us from the firm to speak on different things.

We would read books on leadership. We would discuss those books. We would talk about how things were being handled in the firm and what we may or may not do differently

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and bring, bring in people and talk through those things because usually there's usually more than meets the

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: Um, so anyway, I, I just wanna bring that up because like, this isn't something that happens by itself and it's

Phil Putnam: Oh.

Evan Troxel: that happened.

Like, it, it probably rarely happens by accident. Like, this is something

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: that is intentionally put into place. So I'm just curious from your point of

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: do, how do people actually start to make that happen? And, and I'm sure we could talk about additional kind of benefits of, of

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm. Sure. It really, I think it starts with, um, a, a, a genuine belief among the most senior leaders at a firm or at a business that this is worthwhile. It really does have to be a, a system and an ethos by design, it, it becomes part of the fabric of the culture of an organization, but it also has to be part of their operations and their finance.

Is, and that's where I think a lot of these efforts derail. They think it's just a culture project. No culture is usually handled as a side, like a, a, a side rail, so to speak, of the actual core operations of a company. But your personnel, your people, they are essential to the core operations of your company.

So you can't, you can't think about it as a cute little side project, you know, or like something that's, that's got an end date on it. You know, with Gensler in specific, from my observation, you know, from the outside, because they've been around for so long and because they're so large, they have had the time to decide, yes, we are going to be an organization that prioritizes people development.

Um, we're going to spend the money on it that it costs, and we're going to implement systems into not just the culture, but the operations of our company to make sure that this happens. So I think that's where it starts. It, it comes from a point of view and a genuine belief and conviction among the people who have the most power to say the benefits of truly investing in our people are, are undeniable, unquestionable, and they're worth the time and the money.

And it's not a short term endeavor. Um, and so that's where it starts. The other thing is that it does cost money. It is a financial choice, but the, um, the cost of doing it is so much lower than the cost of not doing it. So of course, in any industry, but especially in architecture, money is always a really, really big issue.

Right. So just here are some figures, uh, across all industries. Forbes and Gallup have found together that the cost of replacing somebody. Um, is anywhere between 50 to 200% of their salary. That's just for an individual contributor. For a middle manager, it's 271% of their salary. And for a senior VP or then like a a, a principal or the top, the top shelf of a firm, it's gonna be over 400%.

And that is just the cost of the entire process of finding and sourcing and placing the replacement and then getting that replacement to one year in the seat. Uh, and the loss of productivity as they ramp up to full to full speed. It does not include the cost of paying that replacement during the first year.

So to put it in perspective, the middle of that range is 150% to replace. If you have somebody who makes a hundred thousand dollars. You're going to spend, I think, what is it, $150,000 or, yeah, $150,000 to replace them. If they make $150,000, you're gonna spend $225,000 to replace them. Now, if you're in a hundred person firm and you're running 15% attrition, which is remarkably low by comparison across industries right now, but let's say you're, you're great and you're only running 15% attrition and you need to stay at a hundred people.

You know how much you're spending to replace 15 people who make $150,000, you're spending three, no, I've got, I've got the numbers.

Evan Troxel: Good.

Phil Putnam: You're spending $3.4 million

Evan Troxel: Wow.

Phil Putnam: to replace those 15 people just to stay at neutral in your staffing plan. And almost all of that $3.4 million is unproductive cost.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: So that's another thing that I, I really enjoy explaining to leaders who think that, oh, it's too expensive, or it's a side project.

It's a nice to have to really invest in leadership skills and then leadership skills that can help you nurture your staff and retain them, because I don't know anybody who has $3.4 million just to throw around

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: on an annual basis.

Evan Troxel: It's, it's interesting to think about it from, from this kind of investment strategy and like a culture strategy, which

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: about, but, and from operationals, right? Like the money side of things. The, the thing that I think I've experienced or, and, and I've witnessed

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: is, is this kind of. Unending line of candidates at the door, like ready to replace because the, the educational system does put out a lot of

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: um, probably more than the industry actually needs, right? To do the work.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: lot of turnover

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: uh, there are a lot of, I would say, you know, culture not, not fits, like what, what's the word for that?

Like, they just don't fit

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm. Sure.

Evan Troxel: Right. And so that's maybe a, you know, a down, you know, one of the bad things about the interview process that could be addressed there too. But it's, so we see this turnover and we see, like, I think a lot of times the attitude and leadership is like, you know, we'll find somebody else.

And, and just like the counterpoint of what you're bringing up here is that like costs serious money to do, to have that kind of an attitude. We'll just get somebody else.

Phil Putnam: Well, yeah, and the other, I wanna expand on this a little bit too. 'cause, 'cause that's a common refrain I hear from, especially from senior leaders and and CEOs and such, who I work with or who I speak to, is that, oh, well, especially in this job market, we can just hire somebody else. It doesn't matter.

Everybody should feel lucky to have a job.

Evan Troxel: Mm

Phil Putnam: Um, I think it's the other way round because please show me, uh, how you're gonna run your business without people, even in the age of ai. Um, but also, um, yeah, you might be able to replace a skillset. Somebody might have an, a comparable skillset. Right. But like you talked about cultural fit, you talked about maybe how the clients feel about them.

You know, there is, there is much more to the value of an employee than just the productivity. You know, the hours they book, the drawings, they do, you know, there's so much more to it. And also when it comes down to it, clients, they, they, yeah, they make decisions based upon who does great work, but they also make decisions upon who they wanna be around.

I mean, buying is humans handing a huge pile of money to other groups of humans. So the human aspect of this is a huge part of the value of an employee. You can, yeah, you can replace somebody with somebody who's younger and costs less and probably is less skilled, but that doesn't mean that's gonna be a smart move for your business.

And also you're still gonna pay more to replace somebody than you ever would to have to satisfy them. And I'll just say this while we're on the topic of money, the cost to satisfy someone. Well, so PayScale, which is one of the world's leading organizations in researching compensation trends, strategies, figures, et cetera.

Um, in 2024, the average pay increase for, uh, top performance without a promotion was 4.5%. And that's more than most people in architecture and tech get. Um, but that's the average across all industries. The amount of a raise that it takes to satisfy somebody and make them stay in their job and like recommit and do their best work is between five and 10%.

Evan Troxel: Hmm.

Phil Putnam: So it's barely, it's not even 1% more than the average increase across industries. And then, okay, let's say you go hog wild, you give somebody a 10% raise, right? Well, that's still a hell of a lot less than paying 150% of their salary to replace them.

Evan Troxel: Right, right.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: I can't remember if it was you who told me this. Um, so forgive me if

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: but this idea of like, how, and, and I guess it was in terms of like financial, let's just call it benefit to the company, but moving people up in position, stature, leadership, um, you know, seniority, maybe more timeline based, but like the

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: of it is super, super beneficial to firms to do that as quickly as possible.

Is that

Phil Putnam: Hmm.

Evan Troxel: I heard from you or do you agree with that? If it wasn't some, something I heard from you.

Phil Putnam: It's not something you heard from me. Um, I would need to know the context to, to say whether I agree with it or not. I, I think there could be some situations where it's beneficial, but can, can you tell me sort of the animating thinking behind that?

Evan Troxel: it's not like just for the sake of getting people into those positions, but, but the idea was that, was that you're, you are developing people consistently and quickly so that they can earn your business more money. Like, I mean, that's, that's part of it,

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: into those people.

So it there's cultural aspect to it as well in ramifications.

Phil Putnam: True. Yeah, I can definitely see the logic there. Um, I think that, you know. For decades now, the concept of making sure that salary increases and promotions happen, happen slowly and, and very, very modestly

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: is kind of a cornerstone of the way that most businesses operate financially.

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: makes no sense when you look at what motivates humans to bring their best work to your company.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: So this idea that we need to string people along,

Evan Troxel: Yep.

Phil Putnam: you know, and, and train them, like hammer down their expect expectations to not expect more than a 3% raise once a year for five years, and then maybe, maybe you get voted to become an associate

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: 35,

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: then maybe, maybe you'll become a c.

Evan Troxel: of arbitrary rules around this

Phil Putnam: E Exactly right.

And maybe you'll be a senior associate by the time you're 40, you know? And, and it's just, and, and for architecture and specific from what I've learned from Raj and, and his friends, I've spent time around also, you know, promotions tend to happen later in, in the age arc by comparison to other, other, um, other industries as well.

So the thing that, that, the context in which all of that mishegoss is happening is the people's lives. So they're getting married. They, they need to buy houses. They, I have kids. They, they want to expand their lives. Their, their life desires are evolving and expanding and becoming more expensive to fulfill at a much more, uh, rapid and consistent rate than employers ever think about compensating their people.

And so what happens is that when a team member, uh, especially someone who's valuable to you, realizes I cannot get the life I desire from the job I have, what do you think is gonna happen?

Evan Troxel: Yeah. Right.

Phil Putnam: Peace out.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: And the reason why is that that person is not gonna sit there and say to themselves, oh, you know what? I don't actually want to have a kid.

That's not real. What I want to do is I wanna stay working at this firm who won't help my life move forward. That's what I want to do. I actually love my boss's goals for their firm more than I love my goals for my own life.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: Now, when I say it like that, of course it sounds ridiculous, but I promise you, 'cause I've been this person, I've been this leader that is exactly the way that leaders think.

When they are in that situation, whether they are conscious of it or not.

Evan Troxel: Yeah. I think it goes back to that quip that you made, which we, we've heard it's a, it's a common trope, right? That you should be lucky that you have the job

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And yeah,

Evan Troxel: to that. I.

Phil Putnam: and this is where we kind of get into another one of my specialties, which is cross-generational leadership. Um, so, you know, there's four generations now in the full-time adult workforce. She got baby boomers, gen X, millennials, and Gen Z. And, um, each of those four generations has a very different relationship with employment and relationship with income.

Um, but the majority of the global workforce today is, is millennials and Gen Zs combined. They're currently 55% of the global workforce. And that data is derived from, um, the US Census Bureau. And then, um, by the year 2035. Those two generations will be 65% of the global workforce. And that's because the younger half of Gen Z are currently between 13 and 19 years old.

So they're not even, you know, most of 'em aren't even in full teenage hood yet, let alone in the adult workforce. So, so there, you know, it's, it's easy for older leaders to, um, to think they know best to assume that their relationship with employment and with income can just be laid onto those two generations that are gonna be two thirds of the global workforce.

And man, oh, manner, are they wrong?

Evan Troxel: Well, Yeah.

because there's also this aspect of they need to do it the way that I did it, but what, what I went through also must be gone through by the next generation and the next generation.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: like this non acknowledgment that things are actually different now.

Phil Putnam: Yeah. And you know, the, um. I'll just relay it through a couple stories of these two, these two generations. Uh, and I'm, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll self-identify. I am a Gen Xer. I have a very traditional Gen X relationship with employment. I'll unpack what that means later,

Evan Troxel: Yes. I would love to hear what that means.

Phil Putnam: but, um, it's a trip, lemme tell you.

But, um, so I was teaching a workshop at a conference back in October of 2024, and I was lucky to have people from all four generations in my workshop. So I was like, this is too good to pass up. Let's just talk. And so we kind of round robin and I just had a person from each generation share their thoughts on, on the topics we were going over.

And it was, it was.

Evan Troxel: are, are these people on the same firm? Are they just, are they just coming from different places? Do they

Phil Putnam: different firms, right? Some of us knew each other, we were all in the same industry. Um, but, uh, but different companies, right? Um, and actually, I'm gonna raise my chair because it's, it's, it's tired and it, it sinks down. It makes me look like a lunch kid. So anyway, um, so the person, the, the millennial who spoke up, uh, we were talking about, you know, kind of what's your relationship with employment?

And she said, I don't think I will ever be able to retire. And it was honestly the first time that this possibility had ever occurred to me. And I was like, wait to can,

Evan Troxel: reality, right?

Phil Putnam: yeah. Not my reality. So I said, can you please tell me, like, specifically what do you mean? And she said, I believe that I will never be able to stop generating fresh income.

I will literally work until I physically cannot work anymore.

Evan Troxel: she can't, like, can't afford to stop. Is that, that's

Phil Putnam: Exactly. And she's like, I don't believe the social safety net in America will be there for me. I, I don't believe social security and Medicaid will be there when I hit that age. Um, and I, the money I can make now does not, I don't think it's gonna last, you know, in a traditional, you know, retirement fund.

And I had never considered that before. And I said, well, do, do you like when you and your friends who are same age get together? Is this common among you guys? Like Oh yeah. And I asked the other millennials in the room like, oh yeah, we don't think we'll ever be able to retire.

Evan Troxel: I believe that. Yeah.

Phil Putnam: So that's, that's one thing.

And I re

Evan Troxel: conversation.

Phil Putnam: Yeah,

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: think, and so I asked her, okay. Then what does that do to your relationship with employment and your priorities? Like, how does that change.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: up for work, how you look for work, and how you make decisions about work. And she said, well, um, I really look for organizations that focus a lot on work life balance.

Um, because I have to enjoy my time while I can. There, there's no such thing as me waiting until I retire to travel. There's no such thing until waiting for retirement to do anything she said. So I have to make sure that they are committed to work life balance. They have to have incredible health insurance because I have to stay as healthy as possible for as long as I can so I can keep working.

And she said, um, and I have to make sure that I enjoy life now. So vacation matters to me. I'm gonna take vacation now. I'm not gonna answer emails on vacation. If that's a problem for a boss. That's not gonna be a problem I'm gonna care about like. I have to get what I need from my life now because I don't think I'll ever stop working.

That's the millennial story. Here's the Genzer story. Um, I was at an architect birthday party, which actually is super fun.

Evan Troxel: Okay.

Phil Putnam: No, but we were like playing Legos or anything, but what we just like at a bar in New York, and it was one of my husband's friends and he was also a friend of mine. Wonderful person.

And, and so real great mixed group there. And so I got into this conversation with this brilliant 26-year-old woman about these topics. 'cause you know, I'm, I'm so fun at parties. Um,

Evan Troxel: What's your relationship to to

Phil Putnam: well, how do you, how do you feel about your paycheck? Uh, exactly. Real casual stuff. So, um, this brilliant woman named Angie and, and she's a, a genzer.

And so we started talking about this stuff and I said, well, what, what are your thoughts on this? And she said, I genuinely believe the earth will not outlive me.

Evan Troxel: Yeah,

Phil Putnam: And now I knew,

Evan Troxel: this is another common conversation in

Phil Putnam: like I knew this, uh, intellectually, but this is the first time I experienced it in person. So I was like, wow, okay, so tell me what you mean. And she said, I think the earth will become uninhabitable before my natural life is over, or it will deteriorate to the point where it will shorten my life and I'll die younger than I could have otherwise.

And I said, okay, well what does that do to your thoughts about employment? And she said, it means that I don't really care if I'm five minutes late for your 10 minute meeting or your 10:00 AM meeting, and I don't really care if there's no errors on the Excel spreadsheet that I'm sending to you. Just like I'm pretty much a nihilist.

I just, I only working to get whatever enjoyment out of life I can while I can, because who knows how long we're gonna be here. Her and I said, is this common among, you know, you and other people your age? She's like, yeah, most of my friends feel the same and now I, 'cause I'm predisposed to care about this stuff.

So I really took all this to heart. But what I then say about this to leaders who are not open to this, who think it's just whining or entitlement or selfishness or being overdramatic, is that it doesn't really matter if you agree with them or not. Like your approval of their fears and desires. That's not a test.

They need to pass

Evan Troxel: doesn't, it doesn't matter to me.

Phil Putnam: their two thirds of the global workforce

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: and what they believe about work and life will decide how they will behave

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: work and life and will decide if they're gonna come work for you.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: And you gotta be willing to ask yourself as a leader, if I spend the next 10 years alienating two thirds of the global workforce, what's the future of my business?

Evan Troxel: Is their one. Yeah.

Phil Putnam: Yeah. So it's, it, I think, I think first of all, if you're a leader, you're a servant. Period. If you don't want to be a servant, you don't belong in a leadership chair, get out. You're harming people. I mean, that, that, that is my ethos. I, I don't flinch on that at all.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: Um, I know there's plenty of leaders who don't think like that, and I think they're wrong.

Um, if you're a leader, you're a servant. And when leaders stand in judgment of their people's desires, they miss the truth. That you cannot judge someone and serve them at the same time.

Evan Troxel: Hmm.

Phil Putnam: You could judge someone wanted, help them at the same time. But that's not service, that's pity. And lemme tell you, pity does not motivate people's performance.

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: So it really is the responsibility of the leaders to take their people's perspectives and needs seriously. And then also look honestly at the financial impact of not doing so.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: I'm genuinely mystified honestly, that I, I, I, I talk about this business case on the cost of replacement versus the cost of satisfaction in incessantly.

It's literally my business to do so,

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: I am stunned at how consistently people just don't care. And it, and coming from the tech world, the absolute obsession among leaders in the tech world is profitability. You're trying to get your company to profitability so it can. Get more money from your venture capital fund, or it can go public or it can, whatever, whatever your goal is, you need to achieve profitability.

And what mystifies me that leaders don't care about the cost of replacing people is because, um, profit is revenue minus cost.

Evan Troxel: Yeah. Directly applies to the bottom line. Yeah.

Phil Putnam: And if you're willingly incurring millions of dollars of unnecessary cost every year, you are willingly adding obstacles to your path to profitability. Why more leaders don't care about this?

I have no explanation for at least not a logical one.

Evan Troxel: Yeah, I mean, can you talk about kind of maybe the, the how, I mean, you're, you've laid out the why

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and I am I, and let, let's just keep it kind of broad, I

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: it, you know, how do people start to, you talked about becoming basically a servant leader, right? And the idea of what, what leadership is.

One of my favorite kind of frameworks of leadership is that

Phil Putnam: Uh,

Evan Troxel: burden. Like a lot of people aspire

Phil Putnam: yeah.

Evan Troxel: They aspire to be leaders because of, you know, perception and maybe pay or this or that. Like, it's like it's a but, but it's not. that to me is for the wrong reasons. Like it doesn't align with what you were just saying about, about service

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: uh, and leadership.

It, it, it is difficult and it,

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: I think more people aspire to it than should, I guess is the way that I'm,

Phil Putnam: Agreed.

Evan Troxel: Right? Uh,

Phil Putnam: Agreed.

Evan Troxel: if you, if you frame it, that leadership is a burden. I don't mean that in like, like I just, it's a challenge.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: difficult job it takes a specific skillset and you can do harm in it if you don't think about it like that.

Or you don't have that skillset, or you haven't

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: skillset yet, and so therefore, like you're actually, you're, you're, you're making it worse than making it better just

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: know, calling yourself a leader. But if you don't have actually the, the traits that we're talking about, then you're, you shouldn't be there,

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: how do you actually start? Because I think, you know, I, I think of the word empathy. I think of the word compassion. I think of these things. I think about just relationship.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: getting to know people and what do they care about. Across the

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: And I think there's a lot of quote unquote, leaders, especially in a EC, maybe not

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: EC, but in a EC, who don't take the time to get to know their people.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: they don't, this level of care is not there. The, the caring of what people care about. What, what are they doing? What's happening in their lives? You know, where are they in their architectural registration exams? Where are they in their profession? Where are they in their career? Where do they want to go?

Where do they, where are their passions? What do they do

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: of work? There's so many easy questions to ask. Maybe they're easy because I'm an, I'm an interviewer, right? But, but I don't think that these, these are just normal conversational questions to ask. and they're not even best served in the office a lot of times.

A lot of times it's like, what can we, let's get outta here.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: Right. Let's get out of this container and go to a place where it's just like that. There's no pressure to, you know, it's not, come into my office and close the door and let's have a, a conversation about this. It's like, no, let's

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: out.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: I'm, I'm just curious like the how part, how do people start to, if they are interested in this true definition of leadership, this development of people and

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and retention and all of these things, some people some tools that they can start to look at, to, to develop that, those, those skills in their life and in their career.

Phil Putnam: Sure. Well, the first thing I'll say is this, like, to those who don't want to be leaders, great. Don't be,

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: have, you have absolute permission to spend your entire career as a non-leader and be as happy as possible. Ball, right? So I think one of the biggest disservices that the world has done to all, all professionals is the narrative that if you're not in management by X Age, you're deficient.

There's something wrong with you. And thankfully, I see that, I see that lie starting to get exposed and get weakened. You know, in many industries it, it's still pretty strong. But the thing that I think is first, everybody has the absolute right to ask themselves, do I, do I want to care for other people?

Is that what I want to do when I go to work every day? Do I wanna facilitate the success of others or am I more interested in just doing what I need to do and reaping the benefits? Saying yes to either of those things is great as long as you're being honest with yourself. Um, and so I think that's the first thing I want to say is to anybody who.

Doesn't actually have a genuine desire to facilitate the success of other people and to drive business results through people's behavior. You don't have to be a leader.

Evan Troxel: Yeah, can I, can I just jump into that

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: that is so, so. especially for the audience of this podcast, which I think generally made up of really high performers.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: it's a really tough transition go from working in really technical architectural, you know, it's, it's like technology architecture, like the overlap of of that is probably pretty much where everybody who's listening to this podcast sits

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: and going to become a manager and let's just call that a team manager.

A people manager is a really difficult shift because it's a completely different skillset. And I think a lot of times people are, have been told and believe that you need to become this next step

Phil Putnam: Yeah. Yeah.

Evan Troxel: you just mentioned. Right. And so therefore there's this kind of internal pressure and maybe external pressure to do that. And, and, and it's really important what you just said, which was. It's not for everyone and it, because it is literally not for everyone. Not everyone should aspire to do that, and you should think about that when you're considering moving into

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: position,

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: if it's literally something you can't or don't want to do, you should not do it.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And to me it comes down to honor yourself first. You know, if, if that's not the experience you want, if you don't dream about that, you don't have to do it.

Evan Troxel: Yeah,

Phil Putnam: And you honor yourself first.

Evan Troxel: level.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: torturing.

Phil Putnam: And I think that before you're in it, you don't understand, like you fundamentally spend your time differently at work every day you do different things.

You don't do a lot of the things you did before,

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: to be like an example. Um, I was talking, we were at another architect party dinner party recently

Evan Troxel: You party a

Phil Putnam: party real hard with the place, so I'm not saying they're raging, I'm just saying they happen. Um, and it was, you know, most people around, around my age, you know, my, my husband's age were in our mid forties.

And, and so a lot of them were saying that we don't, they don't really draw anymore. They can't think of the last times that, you know, that they directly had their hands on a set of plans. You know, they're mostly in meetings, they're mostly leading projects. They're mostly developing other talent, you know, developing the people that are on their teams.

And, and a couple of them I could tell are sort of sad about it, but like, I really miss drawing. Like I really miss just losing myself, you know, in a set of drawings for six hours. One of them even said they miss Overnighters every once in a while. Allnighters, and I can relate to that honestly. Um, but that's the first thing.

If you don't want the actual reality. Of facilitating other people's success. You don't have to do it, and it's gonna be better for everybody, especially yourself, if you don't, if you do want it and you think, yeah, I could actually be good at this. I think it starts with curiosity, honestly, because again, your job as a leader, when you become a leader, your job is to deliver the success of your team members to your business as a whole.

That's your job. And so in order to do that, you have to understand what each of the people, who you serve as a leader, what each of them are trying to get in exchange for the work that they give. This is the give to get thing that we started with, so you can actually understand, first of all, do you actually have a chance of getting their top performance?

Like is it possible for them to get what they want from this job? And if it is, what levers do you pull on to make sure that happens? And so I was in this position, I'm, I'm getting to the how, um, that you asked about, I was in this position when I first became a leader, and like most leaders, especially in tech, you got produce a really large result in a really short amount of time with a really limited amount of resources.

And so I just common sensed it one day and I asked myself, okay, well what's the best way to get someone to give me what I want Well's to give them what they want? And what's the best way to find out what someone wants? You ask them.

Evan Troxel: You ask them. Yeah. It's actually very simple.

Phil Putnam: But you have to be curious enough,

Evan Troxel: You

Phil Putnam: you have

Evan Troxel: I love that you use that

Phil Putnam: mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and I mean, I, I could relate that like to this podcast

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: like the success of this podcast and the, the in insane guests that have come on the show, right? To, you know, as far as like Global Presence Leadership is, it's, it's this curiosity that I have to reach out and ask them if they will come on the show and then have the conversation with them.

But it's through that conversation that I learned so much about them and what their passions are. Why does this matter? Why do they do what they do?

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: I mean, this is a framework that anybody is free to copy, right? Like, there's not,

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: trademark here. This

Phil Putnam: No.

Evan Troxel: the thing. And, and, and at the same time, I think a lot of people, and maybe I, I'm curious if you, if you see this, but a big mistake that a lot of leaders or managers make

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: just assume that what people, what motivates others is the same thing that motivates them.

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: And, and that they have the same very similar aspirations. And I think that is that, I mean, this kind of gets back into this lack of curiosity that often exists or maybe just the, you know, it's, I just don't have time for that kind of a thing. It's just, it's a

Phil Putnam: Yeah. Ooh, this is a, this is a good, uh, ch place to go back to explaining the Gen X relationship with employment.

Evan Troxel: All right.

Phil Putnam: You wanna do that?

Evan Troxel: Yep. Let's do it.

Phil Putnam: Okay. So, um, gen Xers on the whole, were raised by parents who were baby boomers, so we gotta back up to baby boomers a little bit. A baby boomer's relationship with employment in general, I, I acknowledge I'm generalizing here, um, is really based around loyalty, right?

They are loyal to their employer even when they hate them with the fires of hell. You know, because sticking with an organization or a group of people, including through the hard times, is a mark of good character. It's a character value for that generation, and it's not hard to understand why. It's because baby boomers are the children of the soldiers of World War ii.

And, and the, the spouses and families of the soldiers of World War ii. And so literally, chain of command and following orders when you didn't fully understand why and putting the needs of the many over the needs of the individual is how the generation of World War II literally saved the world. And then all those soldiers came home and they birthed the baby boomers and birthed suburbia and birthed the first, the first generation of knowledge work in the United States.

And they just took that chain of command and that loyalty based relationship with life and with work, and laid it into their family environments and into the companies that they founded and lead.

Evan Troxel: Yep.

Phil Putnam: So you've got baby boomers who are like, you don't switch employers. Also they're deeply afraid of change and they're deeply afraid of having any gap in income.

And so their relationship with work is you're loyal, it'll pay off if you're loyal and you, you stick with it 'cause you need a paycheck and you don't want to destabilize your ability to, to pay your bills and care for your family. Um, and by the way, that loyalty paid off for baby boomers because there were pensions and unions and lifetime benefits and meaningful employer contributions to retirement funds.

Also, they were at the tail end of the conglomerate model of business, which basically was like, maintain the largest possible workforce and get them to work for you for as long as possible.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: That was the dominant relat organization of, of business and relationship between management and workers at the time.

Um, gen Xers. We had that expectation of loyalty imbued into us by our baby boomer parents. And also that judgment, which is if you're not loyal and if you switch employers, you, you're not a good human. So the Gen Xers relationship with employment in general is we are the most devoted, we're super loyal to organizations for around 20 years, and then there's usually a moment of disillusionment.

You get laid off, whatever, something happens, the curtain gets pulled off your eyes and you realize that that loyalty was always one-sided. It was toxic loyalty.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: And for any generation in the workforce today, past baby boomers, loyalty is not paid off, period. It's a Ponzi scheme. You put in and you put in, you put in that loyalty, and when you need to draw upon it, there's nothing there for you.

I, I'm saying Ponzi scheme as a, as a metaphor. Not, not literally.

Evan Troxel: Now literal. Yeah.

Phil Putnam: So what happens with with Gen Xers is we are the most committed, most reliable employees. Also. We believe that up to a certain point, up to a point of disillusionment, like we're super committed, and then we have our moment of disillusionment.

We realize employment is a game, and then who knows what's gonna happen right up until our moment of disillusionment, if you ask us, why don't you have what you want in your life yet, we will most likely tell you, because I haven't worked hard enough.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: You know? But as you've talked a couple times about the, the people, the leaders who just assume that other people will want and respond to what they want and respond to.

Yeah. Baby boomers often get tagged with that, but Gen Xers are actually a lot worse at that than baby boomers are. Gen Xers are probably the most judgemental, uh, generation in the workforce right now

Evan Troxel: is that?

Phil Putnam: because we, um, we are driven by excellence and by recognition. And we believe that you have what you earn.

And, um, when you expect to get something without fulfilling our definition of earning it,

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: get offended.

Evan Troxel: Hmm.

Phil Putnam: So we, so whereas, um, whereas Boomers struggle with empathy, Xers struggle with sympathy fee, um, and we're like, no, you have to suffer the way that we suffered. Why do you, why do you expect things you haven't earned yet?

It's the classic model of a conversation when a millennial or a Gen Z employee goes to their Gen X boss and says, I need. A bigger raise and I need them more frequently because I can't pay my bills. And the Xer is like, well you don't just get a raise 'cause you ask for one. And it's not my fault that you need one that's the fault of the market.

Like why do you feel entitled to things you haven't earned yet? And especially if it's a millennial asking for it for them, their thing is like, well, time is money. Like I'm never gonna be able to retire. I entered the workforce during the 2008 housing crisis that set me back on my life milestones five to 10 years.

Like legit. That's what really happened. And no matter how many people want to turn it all into a punchline and make fun of them for it, no, they got jacked.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: And so they're like, I cannot afford to spend my time in an environment that will not meaningfully escalate my financial picture. So. I can't play along with this idea that I gotta wait five years to earn a paltry raise.

Like that's not gonna work for me.

Evan Troxel: Okay. I just want to throw in a couple other things into this that I've seen happen, uh, in, in this kind of relationship that you're talking about between these two different generations. And that

Phil Putnam: I

Evan Troxel: okay, well then tell me what do I need to do

Phil Putnam: mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: to that thing? And I think a lot of times it's ambiguous at best.

It's just like, just keep doing what you're doing or a couple more years of, and it's like.

Phil Putnam: And so to,

Evan Troxel: Is that one, is that three? Like where is that and, and what are the literal things that you want to,

see from me? And it's like,

Phil Putnam: yeah,

Evan Troxel: doing great.

Phil Putnam: so,

Evan Troxel: It's not engaged.

Phil Putnam: And it's so tone deaf on the, on the part of the manager in that situation, because what the employee has just told you is, I can't waste time. And your response is, just wait more. Just wait longer.

Evan Troxel: Just wait a little longer.

Phil Putnam: Just wait a little longer.

Evan Troxel: I'm not back in five minutes, just wait a

Phil Putnam: Exactly. Do it the way I did it. 'cause it's the way that I did it

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: it worked out for me.

And so, but, but now going back to your question of, of what do you do about it, right? The curiosity is critical, but this is what I did. Um, so I had to hire a couple people on my team and I was also inheriting a team member who was there before I joined this company. So I just thought, well, I'm gonna find out what they want and I'm gonna talk to 'em like a human.

And most importantly, I am not going to ask them to pretend like they will ever love this company's goals more than they love what they're trying to get in exchange for the work that they give. Let's just, let's just give, give up on that whole farce. And so whether I was interviewing a job candidate or talking with my employee that I was inheriting, I would say, Hey, as much as you feel comfortable, this is, this is fully voluntary, but.

If you just wanna accept, let's just set aside the job for a second and would you tell me about the life that you're trying to build? Tell me about the life you desire for yourself and your loved ones. And then I'm gonna honestly tell you if you can get it here, because if you can, that's party time.

Evan Troxel: Yeah,

Phil Putnam: I'm gonna get everything I need from you every day.

Evan Troxel: wins. Yeah.

Phil Putnam: Yeah. With a minimal amount of friction. And you're gonna get what you need for your life. But if you can't, you're gonna eventually realize it. If you haven't already, you're probably not gonna tell me when that happens. And, and why should you? It puts you at risk, it makes you vulnerable as an employee.

And then you're gonna go, you know, look for another job somewhere else and, and you're gonna leave and get what you need. Another organization's gonna benefit from your brilliance, and my company's gonna have to pay the cost of replacing you. Everybody loses and. Uh, so I think that it's, yeah, the tactics are important and I, and I created a framework for it, and I'll talk you through it in a second, but I do think the intention matters greatly.

A leader has to believe that, um, or they have to accept the fact that an employee's, number one career goal is to get the life they want. And any concern for their employer's success is a second place motivation at best. And then they have to be willing to be honest with that employee and honestly assess the likelihood of them getting that life from their current job situation.

Because if, if they can't get it, it's gonna end anyway. And the best thing you can do in that situation, if, if they can't get the life they want, is tell them and say, Hey, like, I don't wanna waste your time just human to human. The worst thing I can do to you is occupy your time when you can't get what you want most here.

Evan Troxel: Yeah. we get to your framework, I mean,

Phil Putnam: Mm,

Evan Troxel: it, is it critical? I ideal, I should say that this actually happens during the interview process then, so that you're literally not wasting that time. I mean, let's just say. I'm gonna be hiring somebody right. To, to do this

Phil Putnam: mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: is that when you bring this up, it

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: like it's too late after you hire them.

Although it's, it's probably never too late to start these conversations, but I'm just saying like, it's not ideal at that

Phil Putnam: Sure. Never too late. But yes, I do it in every single job interview I do, whether I'm the hiring manager or not. 'cause you know, now all interviews are by committee. Um, so, but yeah, I do it in every single job interview. Um, and it's really essential because it's part of me also knowing, excuse me, um, am I gonna be able to, is this a smart hire?

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: Like, and the way that I, the way that hiring happens to me is so silly these days because like 95, 90 6% of the effort is spent on establishing capability fit. Okay. Four to 5% of the time is spent establishing cultural fit. And no time is dedicated to establishing desire fit,

Evan Troxel: Mm.

Phil Putnam: which is really the true engine of whether this person's gonna perform the way you need them to or not, and whether they're gonna be there a year from now, or if you're gonna be going through this process again.

And, um, and just going back to the math, if it takes more than a year's worth of someone's salary to hire them, it means you need them to be there at least two years or more for you to break even on the investment

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: of hiring them and paying them. You won't make money on that hire until probably after two years have passed.

But if your leadership skills are so poor that you can't keep people around for two years,

Evan Troxel: You are

Phil Putnam: just,

Evan Troxel: money.

Phil Putnam: literally have a, have a financial operation designed to fail.

Evan Troxel: Mm.

Phil Putnam: Um, so, so that's, that's the larger context there. Yeah.

Evan Troxel: Yeah. No, I appreciate you bringing

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: I, I mean this, there's so many things to kind of, I. It's great to reassess the way we do

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: time. And, and I think a lot of times we just accept the way that, you know, the hiring process is what the hiring process

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: that HR gave me. If you work in a larger company or it's the, you know, you're at the mercy of the committee and what the committee asks. I think it's super important that you bring it up even when you're not the hiring manager,

Phil Putnam: Yeah,

Evan Troxel: make it part of the conversation so that everybody in the room is aware of what the answers are.

Right. Because,

Phil Putnam: yeah.

Evan Troxel: then it's like, well, why does that matter? You can have that conversation with everybody in the room, why that matters.

Phil Putnam: Yeah. And my favorite question, like, when I'm at, when I'm in a position of being a consultant on a hiring decision, the most effective question I've found to ask is explain to me, uh. What, what basis you have for expecting this person to perform. Well,

Evan Troxel: Hmm.

Phil Putnam: that's, that's all that matters, right? Tell me what have you learned about this person and what they want?

That says what we have to give them will bring their best performance out of them, because that's how we're gonna get our money's worth. And Mo oftentimes people don't have an answer for that. They're like, well, they, they meet the job description requirements. I'm like, well, that tells us that they can perform the function that we need from them.

That tells us nothing about whether we can actually motivate them to give us that performance.

Evan Troxel: Yeah, Interesting.

Phil Putnam: if you, that's, that's what matters in a hire, that's what matters in a team member is not if they can do the job, it's if, if they can, if they want to do the job and. This is, this is another really important thing I really need leaders to hear and embrace is that the paycheck's, not magic guys and gals, like the pay is a commodity.

It's not a differentiator. Now the amount of pay may be a differentiator, although in today's market there is rarely, you know, pay that is genuinely motivating, um, especially in architecture. But like, the fact that you give them a paycheck is, gives you no basis to believe that they're gonna be happy to have a job.

They can get a paycheck literally anywhere. So it, you can't just sit there and say, well, they'll do whatever I tell them and they'll put up with whatever I, I give them because they're getting a paycheck. And the more that you get down the generational line, millennials and Gen Zs especially, the more their relationship with income changes.

And especially Gen Zs, they are very comfortable with getting their income from a variety of sources.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: They're very comfortable with a fragmented income ecosystem in their life. Um, also loyalty means nothing to them because right now most gen, even the oldest gen Zers, are only five years post university.

If you consider the average undergrad age being around 21 or 22 years old, if they go into the full-time workforce right after undergrad graduation, they're only been in the workforce four or five years max. In those four or five years of time, it's been basically constant layoffs. It was COVID and then it was economic crash, and then it was returned to office, and that whole battle loyalty has no place in Gen Z's concept of employment.

Evan Troxel: Layer, layer in, uh, like the gig economy,

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: as another, like very transactional from the company side and the individual side. When do you wanna work? Whenever I wanna work, And how you just work when you need a little bit of money and then you don't need to work anymore, right? Like, so this very transactional nature of the way technology has kind of shifted way that. Income happens and, and to disperse it. And diversify is, is actually pretty smart, right? They're, all of their eggs aren't in one basket.

Phil Putnam: exactly.

Evan Troxel: maybe not the way we do it, right? Like

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: And so therefore it's, it's like not even a concept that we would,

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: but it's, it's, it's so, it's very real to those generations.

Phil Putnam: And when you add in the nihilism that we talked about earlier, that is a defining factor of, of most of Gen Z You have this baby boomer or gen XO leader that says, no, you gotta be loyal to the company and, and don't you care about ambition

Evan Troxel: Why

Phil Putnam: achievement?

Evan Troxel: under your desk? Yeah.

Phil Putnam: And they're like, are you freaking kidding me?

Evan Troxel: right.

Phil Putnam: no, I don't give, I don't give a crap. I, I'm literally just here for the paycheck and I can get a paycheck, thousands of places, and I'm completely comfortable with that. And so I think that it's difficult, it's difficult for older leaders and including myself in this, you know, gen Xers and, and baby boomers.

It's difficult for us to acknowledge and embrace, but we do not actually have the hand that we believe we do. We are very often playing a hand in our leadership decisions that we don't actually hold. And I think the reason why we misunderstand today's workforce is because we are looking at other people through the lens of ourselves and millennials and Gen Zs, who, whoever's not in our own generation.

This goes both ways in the timeline, you know? But each generation has such a different relationship with employment and that's gonna dictate how they're gonna respond to things and, and how they're gonna navigate things. And, um, and it's just, it's, it's, it's, it's wild. It's fascinating from a sociological perspective.

It's also really challenging to lead through from a, an actual tactical perspective.

Evan Troxel: I often think of architects as psychologists on, on a few different

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: inside the office, but also with clients and,

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: things like that. Um, this is another level to that, right? When we talk about this intergenerational

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: ways of thinking, these different frameworks and, and

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: that, um, whether you're trying to, you know, move up in the company or if you're just trying to, you know, lead a team in a

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: it kind of doesn't matter where you are.

You have a, a different set of challenges because you're dealing with people in these different. You know, like Gen X is kind of that sweet spot, and

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: spot's not necessarily the right word

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: it's like, oh, it's a tough spot to be in where you're, you're the, in the middle of the boomers and the millennials and, and Gen Z and you have to kind of translate between all of them.

You're at the center of, of multiple different, uh, belief systems and vocabularies and expectations and all of those things. It's a

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: to be in, the, the, the other generations don't have it a lot easier, right? Like

Phil Putnam: Correct.

Evan Troxel: with the multiple levels of, you know, different, the, the same kinds of things from, just from the different perspective.

Phil Putnam: Yeah, like every, every generation has both strengths and challenges. However, because the, the consolidation of senior authority of like the most influential decision making authority is consolidated among boomers and Xers. I think that millennials and Gen Zs have it harder.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: I'm very comfortable saying that because they're only on the receiving end.

Um, now also the, you, a lot of millennials are now in middle or senior leadership as well. We also have a lot of Gen Zs who are company founders. So like there, there's, it's not a one size fits all, but in general, the most common template is you've got boomers and Xers making decisions for companies and firms and then millennials and Zs having the lowest amount of authority and resources.

To absorb the impact of those decisions, but also under the greatest level of expectation to absorb the impact of those decisions. And those decisions almost always represent the perspective and, and thinking of the generation who made the decision,

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: not the generation who's going to be doing the majority of the complying with it and the executing on it, which to me, again, from a business standpoint, is so illogical

Evan Troxel: Yes.

Phil Putnam: because what you do when you basically saddle somebody with uh, uh, uh, uh, something to execute that is so foreign to how they behave and think, what you're doing is you're adding friction into your operation at scale.

And when you add friction, you are increasing the distance between you and your revenue. You're increasing the distance between you and your money. Why would you do that? If you can avoid it, why would you do it? And I have to say, so many of my conversations with, with senior leaders who are X-ers and boomers, a lot of them boil down to me just asking the person, okay, are you trying to win outcomes or are you just trying to win the argument?

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: Like you have the power to decide which, which one you prioritize, but

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: are you, are you applying legitimate business logic here, or are you just trying to dig your heels in because you're upset that the kids won't do what you tell 'em to?

Evan Troxel: Or protect your position or, yeah. There's, there's one of my favorite new, new, to?

me definitions of leadership

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: helping other people win. And I think that is, uh, a super straight to the point and fresh take on the actual, uh, goal of leadership.

Phil Putnam: Well, yeah. And, and so we, I think we gotta talk a little bit about AI here 'cause we're, we're breathing. Um, but, but AI does always come up in this conversation 'cause there's always somebody, you know, uh, who's, who thinks they're the smart person in the class. And like, what about ai? Why do I have to worry about people?

Isn't, aren't people gonna get replaced by machines? And, um, I always pull out this little chestnut, which is Deloitte has found that still today, um, more than 80% of all corporate assets in the US are created by humans. And so what that tells us is that even if there is a future where the majority of business results are created by AI rather than by humans, that's not today.

And we all have to go to work today and we have to lead today and take care of our people today and generate business growth today.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: And so another thing I call leaders to be honest with themselves about is how much of your fixation on AI is just really nursing a fantasy of having machines free you from the difficulties of leading humans.

Evan Troxel: The burden of leadership.

Phil Putnam: And I think that that when, when people start to get honest with themselves about it, they realize, oh yeah, I am. I am holding back on things. I know that I need to do lessons, I need to learn, changes I need to make on how I behave as a leader because I've got this fantasy. I'm believing that someday x number of my staff will be replaced by a machine.

Needs. Well, that might be true,

Evan Troxel: wouldn't it be you

Phil Putnam: right? That I know right of God. That might be true, but that's not gonna be for a while, even if it does happen.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: And the other thing that I always call out is this. In my opinion, the threshold of how much AI comes into our businesses is not going to be determined by what tasks it can do and what operational efficiencies it can provide.

It's actually going to be capped by what amount of money your buyers and your customers are comfortable handing to a machine.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: That's it. That's what's gonna dictate the cap of, of usability and feasibility for AI in your business.

Evan Troxel: Mm-hmm.

Phil Putnam: So now we know that we've been working with AI in our lives in ways we weren't aware of for a long time, but now people know. Now it's common knowledge and there are studies that show that customer satisfaction and even just, even just task completion, interaction completion in a customer service interaction, when the customer is aware of the fact that they're interacting with an AI chat bot or an agent, uh, like a phone agent, eight craters.

I mean, we're talking like from the high eighties to 14%.

Evan Troxel: That's really interesting. I've heard a, a, a story that, or you know, a report that, that kind of talks about the opposite and they used it, um, for communication between patients and doctors.

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: And I think a lot of times in, in the medical records system,

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: write that this were all of your messages to and from your doctor go through.

And so there's like an incentive to be brief, right? Because time is, you know, that's what doctors are doing. They're, I need to get in and do this thing. It's like. Very short answers. They, they implemented AI and they did a big, big, big study thou over tens of thousands of

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: and the interactions with, with the ai and people knew what they, that they were, they were told afterwards.

And then they did a survey on like satisfaction of, of your interactions. And they were much higher for AI because it had way better bedside manner than the doc, than the doctors actually did themselves. Because

Phil Putnam: Sure.

Evan Troxel: is money and they, they don't, they don't have the incentive of spending a lot of time on the messages.

So you can see in different, different ways it might be beneficial. I just, just threw that out there

Phil Putnam: Well, no, you're right.

Evan Troxel: said was very different than what I had heard, but very different study.

Phil Putnam: Well, the context matters. Yeah. This is not a one size fits all thing. Also, I think that the, the, the disposition that the customer has to that environment or that service isn't gonna dictate their response.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: know a lot of people who are thrilled to participate in the healthcare system when they need to.

So.

Evan Troxel: service in general,

Phil Putnam: Yeah, but like, so I've been running kind of my own experiment and I've asked this about 400 people now. Um, and I, so I'll ask them two questions and I'll, and they're usually leaders in a company and I'll say, okay, what's the largest amount of money you're comfortable handing to a machine in a completely human list experience?

Uh, whether it's like just an ATM machine or online shopping, or an AI chat bot or an AI phone agent. And the most common and the most average answer is $5,000,

Evan Troxel: Mm. That's higher than I would've thought.

Phil Putnam: then I will ask them, okay, and what's the average transaction amount you need to maintain for your business to hit your goals this year?

Evan Troxel: Uhhuh.

Phil Putnam: And it's almost always higher than $5,000.

Evan Troxel: sure.

Phil Putnam: And so I say, well, you've got a problem.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: Why are you expecting your customers to respond positively to something that you yourself are not gonna respond positively to?

And, and, and these examples, usually, like the average transaction amount is like $87,000, right? These are usually sales organizations, so it's a significant amount of money. It's a really significant difference. Um, and, and now for companies where, you know, they work at lower transaction amounts, it's not as much of a problem.

But, but for companies that need to move large amounts of money on average in every transaction, it's a significant problem because still the way that buying happens is it's a human or a group of humans handing a pile of cash to another group of humans.

Evan Troxel: Right.

Phil Putnam: And, and that's where I think that leaders have to get honest with themselves about the value of human employees, of human resources in the age of ai.

Evan Troxel: Yeah.

Phil Putnam: it does not abdicate leaders from the responsibility to be curious about people and to explore. Their people's motivations and to understand what they will need to give to retain those people and extract their top performance. And also, I think we would need to be willing to embrace the very clear financial benefits of satisfying people and retaining them over replacing them and treating them like they're disposable.

Evan Troxel: Mm. That was a sweet summary right there. I, I felt like you just put, put the period on the end of the sentence. I, I would

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: it if you, maybe you can tell people where they can find out more

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: I mean, this is, obviously you're super passionate about

Phil Putnam: Yeah.

Evan Troxel: know a ton

Phil Putnam: Mm-hmm.

Evan Troxel: give people a destination where they can learn more about this.

Phil Putnam: Sure. So the two main places, phil putnam.com. That's my website and then also LinkedIn. Um, so you can find me on there. Um, uh, it's linkedin.com/phil Putnam speaks, and then I've written a book about it. Um, so the, the model of discovering people's motivations and knowing what to do next, um, the how is called Desire Based Leadership, and you can find it on Amazon, or you can order it from phil putnam.com.

Evan Troxel: Nice. I'll have links to all that in the show notes for this episode. Phil, thank you. This has been a wonderful conversation.

Phil Putnam: Thanks for having me. I really enjoyed it.