Aaron Miller

Aaron Miller

Provo, UT
Explaining Science for Everyone • David Pogue, award-winning science and tech journalist • s02e08

Explaining Science for Everyone • David Pogue, award-winning science and tech journalist • s02e08

Summary

We're bombarded daily with news about groundbreaking science or shiny new technologies. More than ever, we have to rely on the explainers who can help us understand why and how these achievements actually matter. Will they improve our lives, or more importantly the lives of the vulnerable, in meaningful ways? In this episode, we'll hear from one of the most prolific science and tech journalists of the last few decades to help us make sense of it all.

About Our Guest

David Pogue was the New York Times weekly tech columnist from 2000 to 2013. He’s a six-time Emmy winner for his stories on CBS Sunday Morning, a New York Times bestselling author, a five-time TED speaker, host of 20 NOVA science specials on PBS, and creator/host of the CBS News/Simon & Schuster podcast Unsung Science.

He’s written or cowritten more than 120 books, including his 2021 magnum opus, How to Prepare for Climate Change. After graduating summa cum laude from Yale in 1985 with distinction in music, Pogue spent ten years conducting and arranging Broadway musicals in New York.

Useful Links

The Unsung Science podcast: https://unsungscience.com/

How to Prepare for Climate Change: Amazon

David's Website: https://davidpogue.com/

Pleasant Pictures Music

Join the Pleasant Pictures Music Club to get unlimited access to high-quality, royalty-free music for all of your projects. Use the discount code HOWTOHELP15 for 15% off your first year.

Transcript

[00:00:00] David Pogue: For this semester's essays, I don't know how you're going to know if they were generated by ChatGPT or not.

[00:00:06] Aaron - Interview: Yeah, I won't. I mean, the ship has sailed. It's 10 short answer questions, is my final, and it, you know, it went live last week and it's due on Friday and...

[00:00:16] David Pogue: oh my God.

[00:00:17] Aaron - Interview: Yeah, I'll have no way to know. Other than the hope that if you cheat in an ethics class, then I don't know what to tell you.

[00:00:26] Aaron - Narration: Hi, I'm Aaron Miller, and this is How to Help, a podcast about having a life and career with meaning, integrity, and impact. This is season two, episode eight, Explaining Science for Everyone. This episode of How to Help is sponsored by Merit Leadership, home of The Business Ethics Field Guide.

[00:00:49] Thank you for all the ways that you support the podcast, especially for sharing it with others and for leaving positive reviews on Apple Podcasts. Those two things make the biggest difference in helping us to grow and to reach more people.

[00:01:04] Take a moment to consider with me all that's changed in science and technology over the last 20 or so years.

[00:01:10] It was nearly 20 years ago now that the human genome was fully sequenced, all 3.2 billion base pairs. Since that time, CRISPR technology has been developed to allow individual gene editing in living cells. Advances in medical science are saving many more lives than before. If you live in the US and get cancer, your chance of dying from it has declined by about 13% compared to 20 years ago. That might not seem like much, but it amounts to around 3.5 million extra cancer survivors since 2002. During that same time period, global child mortality has declined by almost half. Mostly thanks to improved treatments for diarrhea, malaria, measles, and respiratory infection. This means nearly 5 million more children per year are living beyond age five.

[00:01:59] Consider the smartphone that you might be using to listen to this podcast. 20 years ago, this thing that fits in your pocket would've made the list of the five fastest super computers in the world. And it can do things computer scientists used to only dream of. It can show you every picture that you have with a dog in it. You can even use it to ask ChatGPT to write everything from an apology email to the essays for your college applications. Not that you should, but more on that later.

[00:02:29] In the last 20 years, NASA has landed not one but four rovers on Mars, and has even flown a drone there despite an atmosphere that's a hundred times thinner than Earth's. Scientists also have detected for the first time gravitational waves formed billions of years ago, like echoes from the dawn of the universe.

[00:02:48] It's not all rosy, of course. The 10 warmest years in recorded history have all happened since 2010. The global Covid pandemic probably killed around 14 million people, even with a record setting development time for a vaccine to treat it. Fueled in part by social media that didn't exist 20 years ago, Democrats and Republicans are twice as likely to view the other party as very unfavorable. It's easy to think that science and technology are causing serious problems and not just solving them.

[00:03:20] My guest today is the veteran science and technology journalist, David Pogue. He's reported on all that I mentioned and more for over two decades. He wrote The New York Times tech column, has hosted over 20 Nova specials for PBS, and is a longtime journalist with the CBS Sunday Morning program, winning six Emmys along the way.

[00:03:38] Aaron - Interview: I also have to say, I feel a little self-conscious interviewing a seasoned journalist like yourself, and so, so if you're thinking in the back of your head like, oh man, what a dumb question that he just asked, um, feel free to point that out. I'm happy for any tips or pointers as we go.

[00:03:55] David Pogue: Okay.

[00:03:56] Aaron - Narration: Throw in five TED talks, around 120 books, including his most recent one, How to Prepare for Climate Change, and his new podcast Unsung Science, and his 1.2 million followers on Twitter, and you're hard pressed to find any science communicator with more reach or experience than David Pogue. He has seen, heard, and almost done it all.

[00:04:23] Aaron - Interview: In a lot of your reporting, you've been a test subject or a Guinea pig, and I'm curious if you maybe had some moments that you, that had the biggest impact on you, for better or worse, that sort of felt most memorable.

[00:04:37] David Pogue: For both Nova and for CBS Sunday Morning, I've often served as the audience's stand in, you know, experiential television.

[00:04:45] I mean, for Nova, I joke that, you know, the basic formula for the shows we've done is they try to kill me on camera. I mean, I've been hang gliding. They sent me swimming with 13 foot sharks and handling them in The Bahamas. I mean, I rode in an Indie 500 race car with Mario Andrei.

[00:05:00] Aaron - Interview: Yeah.

[00:05:01] David Pogue: And at one point, they were studying a bizarre occurrence in the nineties where some Army Rangers were in training in Florida and it was 65 degrees out and five of them died of hypothermia. And the army couldn't figure out how you can die when it's 65 degrees out. So they built this amazing environmental chamber center in Natick, Massachusetts, where they can study the effect of wind, weather, cold, rain, you know, every, every different atmospheric effect on the human body, especially when it's tired or carrying gear.

[00:05:37] And they put me through the same thing. They sprayed me for 15 minutes with rain, 49 degree water. Then they chilled the chamber to 49 degrees. Then they turned on 15 mile an hour wind machines to make sure that I was truly cold. Then they put a hundred pound pack on my back. Then they put me on the treadmill for six hours.

[00:06:04] Then they put a rectal thermometer into me. By the way, the Army apparently can't afford wireless ones. These are corded, rectal thermometers. So you have this tail trailing out. I mean, it was so miserable. It was the worst, worst experience in my life, but it made very good television. That was pretty memorable.

[00:06:25] Aaron - Narration: The conversation about to unfold is going to cover a wide range of topics, but all around this idea of explaining the good that science and technology do in the world and where they're falling short. You've probably guessed that David is optimistic about what science can do to improve the world.

[00:06:43] Aaron - Interview: What do you think some of the ways are that science and technology are improving people's lives in a way that people aren't seeing? You know, telling Alexa to turn on your lights or changing your thermostat from around the world, those are cool but they're right in front of everybody and it feels like there are a lot of ways, and that you've reported on some of these, many of these, there are a lot of ways where science or technology are improving people's lives in a way that they don't actually see.

[00:07:06] David Pogue: Yeah, I mean, I mean, the answer is everywhere. I mean, everywhere. Every study, every experiment you know, every medicine you take, every you know app you run on your phone, the phone itself, all the transportation. We just learned last month that we can deflect an asteroid that might be heading our way to earth.

[00:07:29] I mean, everything. Food you eat, the clothes you wear, the internet. It's all science and technology. Every problem there is to solve boils down to science and tech. And, and it cracks me up that, no, it doesn't crack me up, it makes me sob that Americans have this sort of anti-science slant these days. They're, you know, people are terrified of 5G and, and vaccines and, you know, proven science. Everything you like in your life came from experimentation and study and science.

[00:08:04] Aaron - Narration: Looking around you, you'll see what David means. Much of the technology you rely on every day didn't exist even just 50 years ago. Our lives are constantly and immeasurably improved by the hard work of scientists and engineers.

[00:08:20] So why is so much of the public instinctively skeptical about their accomplishments? Part of it is that the work they do is complex, and the truth is nuanced. But it's also because science needs better communicators.

[00:08:36] Aaron - Interview: Can you talk about what it's like as a science reporter struggling with how you communicate that nuance, especially when you know better than anybody, how long you're gonna keep somebody's focus on, on the things that you're reporting?

[00:08:49] David Pogue: I mean, yes, nuance is a problem when you're communicating to the public. And fear is a problem. We naturally have a fear of the unknown, so any new technology that we don't understand, we condemn. This has gone back for, you know, centuries. People were afraid of the steam trains. People were afraid of airplanes. People were afraid of microwaves. Every new technology is terrifying because it's new and we don't understand it.

[00:09:15] On the nuance question, I very much feel that scientists, as opposed to science communicators like me, are too in love with nuance. They're too afraid to make bold statements. I feel like we, we cost ourselves decades of climate action because scientists have to couch everything and disclaimers and degrees of uncertainty and, and stuff like that.

[00:09:40] I mean, I get that you need to be careful and you can't make sweeping statements, but when pressed, you know, the scientists would probably say, I mean, yeah, what I said is true. Yes, of course there are footnotes, but what I said is mostly true. And right now I feel like that's not the way it goes. Right now, I feel like the, the certainty and the uncertainty are presented in equal-sized handfuls when, when new sciences presented.

[00:10:09] So it's, you know, it's tough because that's the way scientists are trained, is to make a big fuss over the possible exceptions to what they're reporting. But it does mean that action is slower to come.

[00:10:23] Aaron - Narration: Part of the communication problem in science and technology is also that we've learned to be skeptical because big trumpeted advances don't always pan out as promised. Put another way, where are the fusion-powered, autonomous, flying cars that we've been expecting since we were kids?

[00:10:43] Aaron - Interview: Having observed firsthand all the things that you have, what lessons should we take from the fads that sometimes get built up around science versus the, the real hard day-to-day grind of incredible science that diverts asteroids?

[00:10:57] David Pogue: I mean, first of all, you have to question who's doing the reporting and why. Is there, is there a motive? You know, in, in my tech reporting days, we would hear overwhelming numbers of headlines about 3D printers that everyone would have a 3D printer next to the toaster. When the door needed a new hinge, we'd 3D printed it. When a button would fall off our sweater, we'd 3D print it. It just never happened. I mean, 3D printers are there and they have their uses, but as an everyday consumer item that is on every kitchen counter, no.

[00:11:32] I used to laugh at the smart home push. You know, for 30 years I went to those CES, consumer electronics show type things out in Las Vegas every year. And every year the theme would be: your home is gonna be smart and everything will be connected. And when you unlock the front door, the lights will come on and the AC will come on and the music will play. And you know, it just, it just never happened. Like decades... they promoted that stuff.

[00:11:58] Yeah, but sometimes it just takes time. You know, electric cars, everyone said, "Ah, they're dead. Range anxiety. Nothing, nothing's gonna happen." It just took time. And now you couldn't buy an electric car if you wanted one. It's the, the waiting list is like eight months long and sales tripled during the pandemic.

[00:12:15] Aaron - Narration: Another legitimate concern is whether or not scientists and engineers are working on the right problems. Being able to turn your lights on with your voice isn't a massive innovation, even if it's convenient. But thousands of smart people work on how to make this better. What if instead they were working on ideas that improved the lives of the most vulnerable?

[00:12:38] Aaron - Interview: Do you have thoughts around this idea, like how science and tech ought to be focused more on the problems of the most vulnerable people in the world?

[00:12:47] David Pogue: I mean, I'm, I'm not an expert on economics, but I'm, my gut tells me it's, it's just a matter of a capitalist society. Most people go into most businesses to make money, and you don't make money from poor countries.

[00:13:04] There are, you know, some really noble and amazing efforts. You know, there's those incredibly inexpensive solar panels that have been distributed in poor villages in Sub-Saharan Africa where they had been burning kerosene, which, you know, makes them sick and makes their small homes very filthy. And now you can get a small solar panel for, you know, a dollar and it'll power your light, and you're fan, and and so on.

[00:13:34] There are these incredible advances in medicine distribution. You know, o one thing you don't have when you live in a desperately poor country is glasses. There's no, there's no CVS, there's no LensCrafters, and they have just as many eye problems as wealthy people do. So, you know, these cool vans that drive from village to village and fit people with glasses, which changes lives all the time.

[00:13:59] There is, oh, this one makes me crazy. There's a blindness that affects millions upon millions of children's from a lack of, of a certain vitamin or mineral, and we found a way to grow rice--they call it golden rice--that includes that vitamin that would prevent millions of people from going blind. So far the countries that need it will not accept the rice because it came about through genetic modification, which is of course an entire podcast topic, or 50, unto itself.

[00:14:31] But basically in this country, all the corn we eat, all the uh, soy we eat has been genetically modified and it's safe. It's just, we just accelerated what nature does on its own. But it's not trustworthy because it's new and people don't understand it.

[00:14:46] So point is there are companies doing some good work, but there's not a profit motive to it, and so it's never going to get the same balance of attention.

[00:14:57] Aaron - Narration: David's podcast, Unsung Science, is one of the best places to turn if you're looking for the science stories of good that are not getting enough attention. One of my favorite episodes is the one called "Chainsaws, Women and the Cape Town Drought." It tells the story of how climate scientists and the Cape Town community in South Africa came together to rescue the city water sources from going completely dry. It's an awesome story, and I saw the lasting effects of it firsthand when I was in Cape Town this past November. The innovation there really worked.

[00:15:32] Speaking of climate change, this is an area where the financial incentives and scientific consensus are finally coming together. Improvements in climate technology have been accelerating, but it creates an interesting new challenge for science communicators like David who want to motivate the continued changes needed in our behavior and economy.

[00:15:54] David Pogue: There has been a complete turnaround in the last two years regarding hope for our climate future, and it's tricky as a reporter or an editor, or a magazine, or a website because if you broadcast this good news too much, you worry about decreasing the urgency that people feel about making change. So you have a counter incentive to publicizing the good news when it comes to climates, and I, I totally see that.

[00:16:25] But on the other hand, the goal here is to decarbonize our species, to stop pumping carbon into the air from transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, and so on. And power generation is a big one. And in 2022, we got 28% of our power from solar. And I mean, we used to, if you ask the average American, they're like, "Oh yeah, solar power. That's this fringe 1% thing." No, it's almost a third. And of all the new electrical capacity installed this year, 72% of it was solar and wind, and 0% was coal. This year we generated more power from just wind, just wind, than coal or nuclear. And that's, that's a first in history.

[00:17:18] Gigantic progress being made on decarbonizing and you just, you just don't hear about it. Of crouse, It doesn't mean we don't have more to go. That doesn't mean we're gonna meet the deadline.

[00:17:29] And it certainly doesn't mean we're ever going to go back to the weather of the eighties. You know, those days are gone. You know, most of the heat, 93% of the new heat trapped by the greenhouse layer is stored in the ocean. And the oceans take decades or generations to heat up or cool down. So basically in our lifetimes, our children's lifetimes, we will not see a return to the old, the old weather patterns. But the question is, can we stop the weather patterns from making it unlivable in most parts of the earth, and there is still some hope.

[00:18:07] Aaron - Interview: What should the typical consumer be doing? Because I've read different perspectives on this and one of them is that it should be an all-hands-on-deck kind of approach, and then others more skeptically have said that the average consumer actually has very little influence other than making sure they support policies that have the capacity for bigger change. So we're putting the right people in charge, but beyond that, the things I do in my day-to-day life have such a tiny effect on the climate that, you know, whatever I were to do wouldn't really move the needle in any way that's worth all the effort.

[00:18:41] David Pogue: Well, in one way that's true. If you change your light bulbs to LEDs or start taking the subway instead of driving, you will not save the planet by yourself. IN another way, taking those steps does have an effect, and it's this notion of social pressure. People will see what you're doing and people will suddenly consider, "Wait. That guy, Professor Miller does, does it this way. So clearly it's normalized. Clearly it's, it's possible to live a good life doing it the way he does. Maybe I should try that."

[00:19:17] Imagine a cafeteria where everybody's having lunch, and then on queue, 70% of the people in that room look up and to the left. What are you gonna do? You're gonna look up and to the left. You do what other people do, and that's, that's the effect that we'll have when a lot of people start making lifestyle changes.

[00:19:37] But in the larger sense, yes, your efforts are best spent affecting your institutions and your government and the companies you buy from. That kind of pressure will have a much bigger impact than any single thing that you do.

[00:19:54] And it doesn't mean you need to run for president. I mean, it can be your church or your temple, it can be your school board, it can be the local Chamber of Commerce, it can be the company you work for. You can make changes within organizations and institutions that have a big effect. Much bigger than a solo effect.

[00:20:15] Aaron - Narration: But, as individuals we do need to take some of our focus in trying to prevent climate change and instead start preparing for it. On this topic, David has literally written the book.

[00:20:28] David Pogue: And I should also say that, you know, as a guy who spent two years working on a book called How to Prepare for Climate Change, the other thing most people are not doing is preparing for climate change. That again, used to be a controversial stance, like should we tell people to accept what has changed and make changes to prepare changes in their insurance, and how they talk to their children, in what they grow in their gardens, and how they make their investments, and how they renovate their homes, or is that admitting defeat and getting people less excited about trying to mitigate the emissions.

[00:21:07] And I think now most experts agree that we need to do both. We need to mitigate the emissions and adapt for what has changed and will continue to change. So that's the other thing I think most people are not doing enough is preparing for what is now inevitable.

[00:21:25] Aaron - Interview: I think this illustrates: these problems are complex, the solutions are never one size fits all, they require people to have a sophisticated understanding of things. And that's not how the message typically gets out into the world. I think of like health reporting, for example, and how it feels like every year there's some newfad diet that likes to oversimplify the secret to weight loss or avoiding cancer or whatever. If you just eat eight cucumbers a day, you're gonna be, you know, much healthier. Whatever it is.

[00:21:57] David Pogue: That one works, actually.

[00:21:58] Aaron - Interview: Oh yeah. Well, my wife would agree with you actually. She's a very healthy eater.

[00:22:04] Aaron - Narration: Listening to David, you might assume that his science expertise started with something like a degree in biochemistry from MIT. This part of the episode will probably surprise you, because David's first career wasn't in the lab, but on Broadway.

[00:22:20] David Pogue: Yeah. I have the very definition of an unconventional career path. I grew up obsessed with magic. I loved I Dream of Jeannie and _Bewitched _and the $6 Million Man. And I just, I wanted to be magic. I became a magician. I did 400 birthday parties growing up as a teenager. I just, I wanted there to be magic, basically.

[00:22:46] That's my own self-analysis. That's how this whole tech thing began. You know, you could really argue that opening your phone right now and resetting your thermostat 3000 miles away is kind of magic. Or, you know, speaking aloud in your house to turn the lights off and having it happen is, is magic.

[00:23:06] But I was also really into music, so I, I wrote and played the piano for children's musicals growing up in Cleveland. And then I went to college and wrote musicals all through college. And then when I got out of college, I was, I was a music major and I went to New York and became, uh, a Broadway conductor for 10 years. I played in orchestra pits and conducted and did vocal arrangements.

[00:23:31] And that's really the key to my story because in 1986 or so, the, the Mac had just come out in 1984 and there was this music software that... for the first time since the monks started writing music on paper as notation, there was a new way to input music and it was a software program called Finale.

[00:23:58] And basically you just play on your midi keyboard, your synthesizer, and it would write out the notes for you. It's, you know, it's sort of the musical sheet music equivalent of Siri where you dictate, and it just changed everything. I mean, people did not have to write out every note by hand for the first time in human history.

[00:24:18] So I really wanted this program, but it was a thousand dollars and I was a struggling musician, couldn't afford it. So I was a, a member of a computer club, the New York Mac Users Group, and we had a newsletter and the editor said, "Why don't you write this company and tell them that you're a reviewer and they'll have to send you a free copy?"

[00:24:42] It was a great idea. Great idea. And so I did. And they did. And suddenly I had Finale for free and I wrote a review. And then I'm like, well, heck, I could do that for Photoshop. And then I did the same thing and I could do that for Microsoft stuff and I did the same thing. So that's how we started writing about tech is to get free apps.

[00:25:02] Aaron - Interview: That's so great. I love that.

[00:25:03] David Pogue: Yeah. And then eventually I started doing the same thing and getting paid for it with, I wrote for MacWorld magazine for 13 years and then the New York Times needed a new tech columnist in the year 2000. So I joined them and did that for 13 years, slowly phasing out of musical theater. But you know, it's never really gone from my blood.

[00:25:25] And then once the New York Times byline was there, then all kinds of doors opened. You know, Nova, the PBS science show, asked me to host one of their shows, and that led to a long career of hosting Nova specials. 20 of them. Also, CBS Sunday morning came a-calling 2002 and asked if I would do one story on what was then the hot new invention called the Digital Camera. And so I demonstrated that for, for the viewers. They asked me to come back and do another story, and another. And you know, 21 years later I'm still doing CBS Sunday Morning stories.

[00:26:04] Anyway, overall, the overarching themes have been, you know, science, tech, music, entertainment, showmanship, and explaining. I guess that's, that's ultimately what I do is I'm an explainer.

[00:26:18] Aaron - Narration: When you know this backstory, David's reporting makes sense, because he specialized for years in how to capture people's attention. Once you have that, they'll listen to what you have to say.

[00:26:30] His distinctive quality as a science explainer is how he can simplify complex ideas for non-experts to understand. For example, if you know that mRNA vaccines are a big deal, but you don't get the science of why they're a big deal, listen to episode two of his podcast. In it, David explains how these vaccines work by comparing them to ordering food at a restaurant, something we can all understand. He described this a bit in our interview.

[00:26:59] David Pogue: In the podcast episode I did about it, somebody made the analogy of there's a restaurant in every one of your cells and your dna in the nucleus. In the middle is the chef, and they send instructions to this little messenger chemical called Messenger RNA or mRNA that runs out to the dining room, which is the outer part of the cell, and gives instructions to your protein making apparatus to make things that fight disease. And so the idea is we are reprogramming the messenger from the DNA to the outer part of the cell to carry new instructions to tell the proteins to make defenses against these diseases.

[00:27:41] Aaron - Narration: I've benefited personally from David's abilities. Just after finishing law school, I was running a small blog about iMovie software, just as a hobby. David had written a New York Times tech piece about the new version of the software and I sent him links to my site. And he replied! After a few exchanges, he invited me to tech edit his next iMovie book, part of his long-running Missing Manual series.

[00:28:06] That turned into three subsequent books about iMovie that we co-authored, which was an awesome and empowering experience. David is an exceptionally clear and entertaining writer, and he taught me a lot. In fact, the experience writing with him led me to co-authoring The Business Ethics Field Guide with my friends Brad Agle and Bill O'Rourke. I credit much of its success to all that I learned by working with David.

[00:28:32] His talent for explaining things so well has opened door after door for David, too. It turns out that work as a science explainer can lead to a pretty adventurous life.

[00:28:43] Aaron - Interview: Are there moments that still blow your mind when you reflect on them, where it's like, I can't believe I'm here experiencing this incredible thing?

[00:28:51] David Pogue: I mean, I will say swimming with the sharks is pretty memorable. They had a shark wrangler, and an underwater cameraman, and an assistant. All of us did the dive. They all had full body chain mail suits, and I didn't. I was, I was just in a wetsuit. I'm like, "Can someone explain to me why I'm the only one who didn't get chainmail?"

[00:29:17] And the story was about why nothing grows on sharks like bacteria, barnacles, algae. Nothing grows on sharks like they do on, for example, ships. And it turns out it's because they have this wild, very fine micro groove pattern in their skin. They have like tiny, tiny microscopic scales called denticles. And if you pet a shark head to tail, you don't feel, it just feels like vinyl. But if you pet the shark, the other direction, you, you feel how it's rough and that's, that's those little grooves you're feeling. And that's why we needed to actually go down and touch them and wrangle them.

[00:29:59] And I remember when we were still on the ship, the shark expert said, "Now I'm going to wave these bloody fish guts in the water to attract the sharks to us. So I would advise that you, David, keep your arms by your sides. Don't wave them because the shark's gonna think you've got food and come at you."

[00:30:21] So if you see, if you see the finished, finished footage, like my arms are crossed under my armpits, I'm like,

[00:30:28] Aaron - Interview: As tight to your body as you can get them.

[00:30:30] David Pogue: Exactly. Like a stone.

[00:30:32] And it didn't work anyway. Like the shark came and got the chum and then saw me with these dead eyes and swam straight at my face like, "Do you have any?!?" It was just the scariest thing. I mean, if it had decided to eat me, there was just nothing I could do.

[00:30:50] Aaron - Interview: So is there something you haven't done yet or experienced yet that you hope to someday?

[00:30:55] David Pogue: I mean, someday I'd like to experience zero gravity. I, I don't know if I'm ready to ride on one of those experimental rockets, which seems still super dangerous. But at the very least, maybe on my 60th birthday, I'll sign up for the vomit comet. You know that airplane that right flies in a steep arc so that you experience 30 seconds at a time of zero gravity and floating in the air.

[00:31:17] I think that'd be really fun.

[00:31:18] Aaron - Narration: And now for a word from our sponsor.

[00:31:21] Leading an ethical career can sometimes feel like navigating through a wilderness full of pitfalls and other dangers. Having good intentions isn't enough. What you need are ethical skills.

[00:31:35] The Business Ethics Field Guide leads you through the trickiest of ethical challenges. Based on extensive research involving hundreds of dilemmas faced at work and written by authors with decades of experience, the book guides you through the 13 most common ethical dilemmas that people face. It gives you the expertise and tools you need to navigate them safely. But more than just keeping you safe, it also trains you to be an ethical leader that others can follow with trust and confidence. You can find The Business Ethics Field Guide at Amazon, Apple Books, Audible, and at meritleadership.com.

[00:32:16] Now that we know more about David and his decades of expertise, I wanted to ask him about a range of topics. So let's dig into them.

[00:32:24] Aaron - Interview: Let's start with this one: social media. Has it been, do you think, net positive or net negative as far as its technological usefulness?

[00:32:33] David Pogue: Yes.

[00:32:36] I mean, yeah. I mean, most of the focus is on the negative, which is, I mean, gigantic negative effects, polarization and depression and so on, but, you know, also wonderful effects. You know, uprisings against totalitarianism, and organizing events to fight for climate, or celebration of good deeds. I mean, just an immense amount of stuff that it doesn't get a lot of press.

[00:33:02] I've been assigned a story for Christmas Day for CBS Sunday Morning about the good news of 2022, and believe it or not, there was some. In fact, there was a lot, but it doesn't get press, and I think it's because bad news breaks, right? It, bad news tends to strike suddenly, but good news is just this constant river that's, that's more quiet and it's going on all the time everywhere. So it doesn't make headlines, but it's, it's happening.

[00:33:31] So, yeah, you know, I think the same social media, it's been a giant change with huge, positive and negative effects.

[00:33:40] Yeah.

[00:33:40] Aaron - Interview: What about crypto and blockchain? Are there things about those technologies that most people just don't understand enough?

[00:33:49] David Pogue: I don't think most people understand it at all. I think, you know, the whole thing was this, it was supposed to be unregulated. There weren't going to be middlemen. There weren't going to be banks. There was gonna be nobody charging fees. And I think that, you know, the irony is that already in its early days, we have most of that. There are middlemen. There are exchanges. You pay fees when you do transactions. There isn't regulation much, but it will be regulated. There's no question. I mean, it's just, yeah, it's just a free for all right now. So I, you know, I think most people don't understand that.

[00:34:26] Aaron - Interview: Are there any advancements on the horizon in health that are especially exciting or interesting to you?

[00:34:34] David Pogue: mRNA vaccines. It's a whole realm. It's not just the Covid vaccine. It's a new way of programming your own body to fight disease. And Covid is only the beginning of it. I mean, they're looking at diabetes and cancer and all kinds of diseases. HIV, Lyme disease, all kinds of things could be fixed, and some are already in trials, you know? So I think the mRNA vaccine revolution is just... we've just seen the tip of the iceberg. It's really thrilling.

[00:35:06] Aaron - Interview: As you look at all the fields you reported on. Are there fields where you think, "Man, we need more people in this one"?

[00:35:13] David Pogue: It's a weird time, right? Because it used to be that, you know, programmers would never be in short supply, and now of course you have these massive layoffs by all the tech companies and now you're, you're sort of crazy if you go major in computer science. But this, this could just be a, a glitch.

[00:35:30] I'd say obviously AI is just exploding right now and ethicists in AI, obviously. AI experts are getting massive, lucrative offers right now as they get out of grad school. In medicine, I'm probably not the guy to say, but obviously mRNA is a hot field and personalized medicine is a hot field.

[00:35:50] And you know, the world also needs attention. I, I don't know how we're gonna solve the rare disease problem, but there are no, no pharmaceutical company's gonna develop a drug for a horrible disease that affects only 150 people and we have no real way of solving that problem. But man, if you ever have an option of what you want to work on, there's gonna be a rewarding field for you if you can, if you can afford it.

[00:36:18] Aaron - Narration: David and I also found ourselves in a lengthy conversation about machine learning and AI. This past year has brought a dizzying array of technologies that can make art or write poetry at a level that's almost human.

[00:36:32] David Pogue: Right now, what's really hot on my mind are two gigantic innovations from this company, OpenAI, which is a Silicon Valley artificial intelligence company. A lot of your listeners have probably heard of Dall-E, which is across between Wall-E, the Pixar movie, and Dali, the artist. This is this website where you can type in a description of any kind of art. You want like a panda made of Legos, hula dancing on the rings of Mars, painted in the style of Monet , and in seconds it'll produce that piece of finished art.

[00:37:09] It can be a painting, a cartoon, a pencil sketch, a sculpture, a a knit something, photorealistic, CGI generated. You can make it look whatever you want in the style of whoever you want. And that's very thrilling and very terrifying because of course it instantly means who would ever hire an artist again.

[00:37:29] But then something even more radical came out, which is, it has the awful name ChatGPT. Basically, it's an artificial intelligence writer, so it's exactly the same thing, but for prose. So you can type in, you know, write a limerick about,you know, being an economics professor. Or write an apology letter to my wife for being late to her birthday dinner. Or this is the code I've written and it has a bug that I can't find. Solve the code. Or write the instructions for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, written in the style of the King James Bible.

[00:38:08] Aaron - Narration: You've almost certainly played around with these tools in the past year or maybe even used them for work. And if you haven't, then you really should. In fact, we all need to understand what they can do because the ground is shifting for all kinds of careers because of this technology, including mine as a college professor.

[00:38:26] This was a fun, if somewhat troubling, part of our interview.

[00:38:31] David Pogue: It's terrifying. It's the absolute end of the college entrance essay. It's the end of homework. It's the end of letter writing. My son is applying to colleges. He's, he happens to be a Scrabble champion and so he won the the Nationals twice a couple years ago.

[00:38:51] Aaron - Interview: That's amazing.

[00:38:51] David Pogue: So that's what he wrote his college essay. So I, to compare, I said to this thing, write a college essay about being a Scrabble champion. And it, it basically wrote the same essay. You know, "I've been fascinated by the construction of words since I was a little boy." You know, like, incredible. And so I'm trying to not freak out because my whole career has been observing that freak out. Things tend not to destroy the world after all. But I have a hard time seeing.

[00:39:23] When I was in fourth grade, calculators came out and I remember the same kind of hysteria. "Kids are gonna forget, they're gonna lose the skill of doing arithmetic in their head." And the answer today we would say is, "Yeah. So? Yeah, like that's exactly what happened."

[00:39:40] And I think that's probably what'll happen with this. Like kids aren't gonna learn how to write an essay anymore. They're not gonna be able to write a letter, they're not gonna be able to structure their thoughts. Like now we have this tool, people will use it. That's what I'm trying to, to do is my rationalization without getting upset. But I've shown this to a couple of other professors, Aaron, and they are absolutely terrified.

[00:40:07] Aaron - Interview: Well, and you know, it's so funny to think about that because I teach an ethics class. Right?

[00:40:16] Aaron - Narration: David and I tested how well ChatGPT could answer one of my exam questions for my business ethics class. Without giving away the question--it was about the history of the challenger shuttle disaster--I read the question to David and he read back the reply that ChatGPT generated in just a few seconds.

[00:40:35] Aaron - Interview: Yeah, I would not spot that as not being written by the student.

[00:40:39] David Pogue: Yeah. Yeah.

[00:40:40] Aaron - Interview: Wow.

[00:40:41] Aaron - Narration: Thinking through everything that we've discussed in this interview, I've gained a much deeper appreciation for the explainers of science and tech, not just for the people engineering or inventing it. It just so happens that my niece is heading into this exact profession, and I thought it would be fun to ask David to give her some advice.

[00:41:01] Aaron - Interview: I have a niece who just graduated with her bachelor's in aerospace from Cal Tech. She was at JPL and had those incredible experiences, but she's actually decided to, to pivot into science communication.

[00:41:13] David Pogue: Wow!

[00:41:14] Aaron - Interview: And so that's what she's doing for her master's degree right now. I, I wanted to ask what advice you have for her.

[00:41:20] David Pogue: Well, I'd say study the psychology of the public before you start communicating, because messages have to be phrased in a way that's reassuring. I mean, my whole thing about the unknown is that it's a hundred percent natural to be afraid of the unknown. We were evolved that way, right? Like our our ancestors survived by not going into the dark cave where there might be bears.

[00:41:49] And so what we need to do as new technologies come along is make them not unfamiliar. Make them familiar. So repetition, analogy, examples, explaining in terms that we are already comfortable with. In other words, the things people are afraid of, self-driving cars, 5G, mRNA vaccines, are only things they're afraid of because they didn't grow up with them.

[00:42:18] There's no such thing as a movement of photosynthesis deniers, right? There's no, there's no movement of people who say that baby humans do not come out of wombs. I mean, there's certain... that that ice does not come from water, right? There's certain things that everybody accepts as as scientific givens, and that's because we grew up with them.

[00:42:38] It's only technologies that are new, since we became adults, that people fear and mistrust. So that kind of thing. I, I'd say she needs to appreciate that before she starts just saying, this new AI program can write your letters for you. You know, you need, you need context, you need framing, you need an understanding of the terror.

[00:43:00] Aaron - Narration: No matter how well the explainers do their jobs, there's surely some of the responsibility that needs to be laid at our feet, the listeners. We have to be both open and discerning and that can be hard to do. David has some great advice for all of us as well.

[00:43:19] Aaron - Interview: What advice do you have for the public as they learn about new science, as they think about, you know, ways that science and technology can help or hurt them? Like are there big lessons that they should be taking away as they process the information tsunami that hits them every day?

[00:43:35] David Pogue: I think the main thing is to consider the source and what they have to gain with the announcement. So is it a commercial company that stands to make a lot of money from this? And in that case, you can afford to be a little skeptical about, you know, have, uh, have they covered all the potential downsides? Have they done the proper testing? Does it work as well as they say?

[00:44:00] On the other hand, if there is no particular beneficiary... For example, as we record this today, it was announced that the National Ignition Facility, this multi-billion dollar experimental lab in California that's been trying to get nuclear fusion to work. This would mean infinite, completely clean, non weaponizable, nuclear energy from fusion. They've been working for years and years and years and years, consuming billions and millions and millions of dollars to attain ignition, which means getting more energy out of this laser collision than they've required to produce the lasers themselves. I hope that makes sense.

[00:44:44] In other words, the first step in getting fusion to work is to get a reaction that generates more power than you put into it. And they haven't even been able to do that for decades. So they finally achieved that and that news just came out this week.

[00:45:01] So, alright, so do we mistrust that information there? There's lots of caveats. That doesn't mean we can immediately build power plants using it. There's a long way to go. But, is there a corporation who's going to profit from this? No, because it's a government facility. Who stands to gain? Well in this case it's the world. I mean, it would be free clean energy forever. So is there a reason to be skeptical that it really happened the way they say they happened?

[00:45:29] Mm, not really.

[00:45:32] Aaron - Narration: We're at this point in history when it feels like every day comes with news of some amazing human achievement: an invention that treats a previously tenacious disease, a promising next step in unlimited clean power, or an actual asteroid being diverted from its original course. But the news is also rife with announcements about a shiny new smartphone that's 3% better than the one that's already in our pocket.

[00:46:01] We're lucky to have the explainers to make sense of all these things, and we ought to make sure that we pay attention to the good ones who can help us see the new gadgets and discoveries for what they really are. I hope we can appreciate the important work that they do.

[00:46:19] I am so grateful to David Pogue for sparing his time and sharing his stories and insights. This episode, as you can imagine, has been a particularly gratifying opportunity for me. If you want to hear his podcast, Unsung Science, or read his book, How to Prepare for Climate Change, we have links to those in the show notes. You can also stay up to date with him by joining his 1.2 million followers on Twitter or by visiting DavidPogue.com.

[00:46:51] Next episode, I'll be talking with my dear friend and mentor, Todd Manwaring. Todd is the founding director of the Ballard Center for Social Impact at BYU. It's the largest center of its kind at any university in the world. We're celebrating its 20th anniversary right now, and the 25,000 student experiences that it's created over the years. We'll talk about how to pick good charities, how to empower young people, and how to find your own path in making a positive impact on the world.

[00:47:25] If you enjoy How to Help, please take a moment to give us a positive review on your podcast app. It really helps us to reach more listeners. And if you have a favorite episode, I hope you'll share it on social media or with your friends. It means a lot to us.

[00:47:40] If you want to stay up to date with the podcast and with my other work, subscribe to the How to Help email newsletter, where I occasionally share ideas for how to have more meaning in your life and in your work. You can subscribe or read the archives at How-to-help.com.

[00:47:58] This episode was written and recorded by me. Our production team for this season has included Ty Bingham, yours truly, and Joseph Sandholtz, who also mixes our audio. Our music comes from the Pleasant Pictures Music Club. If you want to use their music in your projects, you can find a link and a discount code in our show notes.

[00:48:19] Finally, as always, thank you so much for listen. I am Aaron Miller, and this has been How to Help.

Expanding Access to Proof • Ashish Gadnis, CEO of BanQu • s02e07

Expanding Access to Proof • Ashish Gadnis, CEO of BanQu • s02e07

Summary

How easily could you prove that you are, indeed, you? For most of you, it would be no sweat. In fact, you've probably done it hundreds of times. As a result, you can do things like get a bank account, rent a car, or buy an apartment.

In much of the world, proof is harder to come by. Many people don't have a way to prove things like their income or identity. And yet companies that rely on these workers claim to have sustainable supply chains while leaving behind the people who make them possible.

My guest, Ashish Gadnis, runs BanQu, a blockchain company working to make supply chains transparent and give access to proof for 100 million people so they can escape from poverty.

About Our Guest

Ashish Gadnis is the co-founder of BanQu, the first ever blockchain supply chain and economic identity platform for refugees and people in extreme poverty.

Growing up in poverty in Bombay, Ashish never forgot how it felt to stand in food lines to survive. He went on to build a successful career as a serial entrepreneur, serving as founder and CEO of multiple technology startups. In 2012, he sold his last tech company to a multi-billion-dollar consulting firm and soon after, BanQu was born.

In addition to his role at BanQu, Ashish is also a senior strategic advisor to the United Nations on the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 agenda.

(Adapted from https://sustainablebrands.com/is/ashish-gadnis)

Useful Links

BanQu: https://www.banqu.co/

Ashish's TEDx Talk, "Do You Know the Farmer?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBKOzJPazNM

Follow Ashish on Twitter: https://twitter.com/agadnis

Follow Ashish on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashishgadnis/

Solvay Uses Blockchain Software: https://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/solvay-utilizes-banqus-blockchain-software-to-secure-guar-supply-chain-and-promote-farmers-digital-autonomy.html

Pleasant Pictures Music

Join the Pleasant Pictures Music Club to get unlimited access to high-quality, royalty-free music for all of your projects. Use the discount code HOWTOHELP15 for 15% off your first year.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Ashish: And when I landed up in Bogota, I was just like, "Wow, I have my own toilet." You know, if you've not had that freedom, most people in America can't relate to this. But for me it was like this aha moment. I'm like, ah, that's what freedom feels like.

[00:00:14] Aaron - Narration: Hi, I'm Aaron Miller. And this is How to Help, a podcast about having a life and career with meaning, integrity, and impact. This is season two, episode seven: Expanding Access to Proof.

[00:00:32] This episode of How to Help is sponsored by Merit Leadership, home of The Business Ethics Field Guide.

[00:00:40] Before we begin, I just want to say thanks to all of you who are listening. The other day, someone shared this lovely compliment. They said, quote, "By the way, I loved the podcast episode with Walter Shaub. Definitely my new favorite episode. I think I've shared it with a half a dozen people already." You know, knowing that you enjoy the show and that you take the time to share it, it just means the world to me. So thank you for listening. Thank you for leaving reviews. And thank you especially for sharing the podcast.

[00:01:13] How easily could you prove that you are, indeed, you? For most of you, I think it would be no sweat. In fact, you've probably done it hundreds of times. You'd show me your driver's license or maybe your passport, and it's as simple as that. Other than waiting in line, maybe paying a fee or taking a test, you didn't have to do too much for this incredibly useful little card.

[00:01:40] Many of us are swimming in proof we didn't have to work to earn. We get a birth certificate just for being born. The same goes for a social security card if you're in the United States. As we get older, if we don't want to take the test for a driver's license, we can still get a government-issued photo ID just by showing someone a few utility bills and that same birth certificate that we got for free.

[00:02:07] When you want to open a bank account, a government-issued ID is pretty much all you need. You can then call the bank whenever you want and do business over the phone just as long as you can share something simple like part of your Social Security number and the name of your childhood pet. Or you can just log in on the web with your password. Thanks to programmers and encryption, you have all the proof you need.

[00:02:32] Now think of what all this proof does for you, because it does a lot. You can get a job more easily because of it, or rent an apartment. Quick and simple access to proof makes it easier to get on a plane, to borrow money from a bank, or to rent a car.

[00:02:50] Proof, if you think about it, is like grease that makes the gears of the economy turn more freely and it makes your life so much easier.

[00:03:02] Like most things we have in abundance, it's easy to take proof for granted. In much of the world, proof is much harder to come by. The government agencies that provided are slow or the process is expensive. You might be at the whim of people who cancel appointments on you or give preference to people with more money. And you might just not have a way to prove what's being asked for, like your income. My guest this week, Ashish Gadnis, has two stories that powerfully illustrate this difference.

[00:03:39] Ashish: When I came to the US I had $240, but at the end of the first week, I was able to open a bank account.

[00:03:46] There's a couple moments in life, at least for me, that have really shaped my understanding and I'm still learning. But it was a shock. It was a shock because you know, here I was a kid with nothing, but I was able to open a bank account because I was able to show my employment letter. I was able to show a copy of my passport and I was able to show that I had a pay stub, right?

[00:04:10] And I was able to get a bank account, and that was kind of this massively shocking aha moment for me because I didn't kind of exist up until that point. If you fast forward, and this might seem disjointed because I have adhd, but I'll make sense in a second here.

[00:04:25] But this happened in 1994 and 2014, you know, 20 years later, almost to the same date, I was retired. I sold my last startup. I'd spent a couple years in and out of the DRC in Congo. And the women farmers that I was volunteering with as a part of the USAID program wanted to open a bank account, right? And, and a lot of people have heard the stories that the local bank refused to, to let that mama farmer open a bank account.

[00:04:56] And 20 years apart, right? Two incidences, same incident, almost extremely different outcomes, right? So I got a bank account and there was no issue. I got it in 1994, began a great career, made money, blah, blah, blah.

[00:05:13] Fast forward, here's this mama farmer who was not able to open a bank account because she couldn't prove her harvest information. She could not prove the land that she was using. She couldn't prove that she was a farmer for the last 15, 20 years, and the horrors of, you know, death and rape and violence that she had seen, yet the bank said no.

[00:05:38] And, you know, I got in an argument and the guy finally said, look, I can't bank her, but I'll bank you. Right? That's where the name comes from. And that is kind of the bookends of, if you see, you know, where kind of my life bounced around is here's 1994, where, you know, even though I'm not white, I got a bank account. Right. Walked in. Got it. And fast forward in, in, in 2014, a woman who worked so hard is not bankable.

[00:06:05] And, and you don't even have to think about 2014. This happened to me two weeks ago. I was in Tanzania with the Maasai farmers in a place called Monduli, about a hundred kilometers south of um, Kilimanjaro. And the local banking system doesn't let them open a bank account without charging a 16% interest rate on a loan.

[00:06:29] Forget 1994, forget 2014. This is 2022 October of this year where smallholder farmers, especially women, are still refused a bank account even though they do the most important work in our supply chains, which is grow our crops. The hardest working people in our global supply chain are our farmers, our workers, our waste pickers, our miners, yet they are invisible, unbanked, and cannot prove their existence.

[00:07:02] Yet you and I, you know, we are claiming sustainability. We're claiming this climate, romance, we're claiming suddenly this ethical radar that we have trying to save the planet. But I'm like, but wait a minute, you know that mother in Zambia and Uganda and Tanzania is still unbanked .

[00:07:23] Aaron - Narration: Ashish is the CEO of BanQu, spelled B-A-N-Q-U. It's a blockchain company helping bring the power of proof to those who need it most, and it does this by adding transparency and simplicity to everyone in a supply chain. From the cocoa farmer in Ivory Coast to the waste picker who's recycling your bottle of chocolate milk. With BanQu, the mama farmer whom Ashish mentioned can finally have proof of the success of her business. BanQu is replacing a broken system where what proof there is can be easily destroyed.

[00:08:01] Ashish: In 2019, you know, when we were like growing crazy and everything, we were just starting to roll out BanQu for barley farmers. And we hadn't yet gone to this one mama farmer, Agnes, her name was. And we kind of overheard a conversation where the previous month she had been given a paper receipt because they didn't have cash.

[00:08:20] So she went home. By the time she got home, it rained, the receipt disintegrated. Think about that. It disintegrated. So she comes, four days--I'm not making it up--four days she waited for her money because the receipt had disintegrated. Now, fast forward, right? She is on BanQu today. She sells it.

[00:08:43] But the point I'm trying to make is that that is the power of restoring their rights. It's not even pity. It's not even help. It's just they, we owe the mother a receipt, right? Yeah. And that's what blockchain does.

[00:08:57] Aaron - Narration: Now the mere mention of the word "blockchain" might make your eyes glaze over like most technical mumbo jumbo. Or instead it makes you think of the scams that are perpetrated by Miami Crypto Bros who brag about their bored Ape Yacht Club NFT.

[00:09:13] If you don't already know how blockchain works, then I am not the right person to explain the technical details. What I can say is that at its core, blockchain is a technology that allows computers run by different people to all have verified copies of the same data. Because of how it works, it's impossible to make changes to the data without every other computer knowing what changed and how. In BanQu's case, blockchain becomes a transparent way of documenting the sale of things like cotton and cocoa.

[00:09:48] Ashish: So now put yourselves in the shoes of that farmer who has been growing cotton for the last 10 years, or coffee or cacao, or picking up the bottles and selling it in this unfortunate dance of buyer and seller, but cannot prove anything. You are never gonna break that cycle, right? And this is where the solution matters of blockchain, right?

[00:10:11] So in the non-blockchain world, when that--staying with cotton, right--when that bag of cotton changed hands, the person who buys it may have an Excel spreadsheet, may have a smartphone, may have a database. In that example, it's a one-sided transaction. All the data goes into a repository, Excel, or whatever, right?

[00:10:38] But that farmer did not have any say in terms of what was recorded on that centralized system. So that's the current world we live in, which is what I call the world of data dictatorship, right? Where somebody who owns the data controls, the data, dictates the data. And then if you are in that base of the pyramid when it comes to poverty, you don't have a say.

[00:11:05] Blockchain. What's the difference? The very basic premise of blockchain is that if two parties participate in one transaction, then both parties are owed a copy of the same transaction in a way that it cannot be changed. If the farmer sells a bag or a bushel of cotton, if I used blockchain, then a copy of that transaction of 40 kilos of bushel at 16% moisture and 400 kwacha, price quality and quantity. Both people should have a copy of the transaction in a way that nobody can dispute.

[00:11:49] And how do you do that? If I use blockchain, the mother has an SMS phone. And she's smart. She knows how to use SMS. What if, and this is kind of the premise of BanQu, right? What if we could deliver that same history through SMS, write it on blockchain so all parties have the same copy, but deliver it to her via SMS.

[00:12:10] If I can do that, then she can interact or react with it and say yes, no, or otherwise. And that for us was the aha moment. You know, when we started BanQu in 2016, we said, ah, why blockchain makes sense? Because for the first time, this farmer or this waste picker will be given their own copy of their data that they have always been owed for the last 300 years. And that same copy will then propagate all the way upstream so that nobody can deny it. It is extremely simple, yet extremely powerful, and never been done before. And that's the solution.

[00:13:00] Aaron - Narration: By now, you're probably wondering about Ashish himself. As is the case with my other guests, he has a remarkable personal story that brought him to this point.

[00:13:11] Born and raised in poverty, Ashish learned to code, worked around the world, built and sold multiple companies, and is now dedicated to spending the rest of his working years on this problem: helping 100 million people out of poverty. His story begins in Mumbai, India.

[00:13:32] Ashish: Growing up, uh, late sixties, early seventies, you know, we didn't have much. Right. You know, poverty was just what it was. Me and my brother, we broke up the week in terms of who got to stand in the ration line, and it wasn't, you know, it, we didn't know anything better, right? So I stood in last line for three days and my brother got the other three days, and it was for basic commodities, right? Wheat, rice, and oil. So we could eat.

[00:13:56] And it left this tug in my heart or a punch if, depending how you look at it, around poverty. And that kinda shaped my thinking at an early age. That was kind of like, someday I'm gonna get out. And then someday when I do get out, I wanna find a way for other people not to be a number standing in a ration line just to eat.

[00:14:19] Aaron - Narration: As a teenager, Ashish found that he had an interest and ability for software coding, something he shared with a lot of kids around that time. It was a skill that promised an escape from poverty.

[00:14:32] Ashish: You know, in those days you could learn programming and my dad said, you can beg or code. And you know, here I am. Pretty stereotypical, nothing, you know, smart about me. It just, everybody else had the same choices and I fell into that same bucket.

[00:14:47] Aaron - Interview: Learning coding and then sort of seeing the path, what was your vision like as you were first picking up this skill? I mean, what were you seeing ahead of yourself that way as you were learning how to code?

[00:14:56] Ashish: To be honest, nothing. You know, I'm lower than the doormat kind of guy, and no, I didn't have any vision, nothing grandiose.

[00:15:02] I was just like, I just don't wanna be poor. And you know, if the word on the street was, if you could code, um, you'll make money. And hopefully with coding you'll be sent overseas. So, you know, I was just like, oh, I wanna get out. So gonna code and that's it.

[00:15:21] Aaron - Narration: You might have noticed the way that Ashish hesitates taking credit for being especially smart or ambitious. He really doesn't see himself that way, as being smarter or better than any of those in his same circumstances. Mostly he sees himself and his path as fortunate.

[00:15:40] Ashish: It's a straightforward path. I think a lot of people, and I'll just speak for myself, right, give people like me a lot of credit, and I don't, because it's not, it's nothing special.

[00:15:48] If you were born instead of me in Mumbai, you would be in the same place. It has nothing to do with intelligence, in my humble opinion. So the path was simple, right? You, if you learn how you, if you're decent at programming, a good chance you'll get a scholarship to go to college, which I did. And when I finished my university, I was hired, you know, I was hired by Tata.

[00:16:09] Tata was all the rage. You know, they were the largest software offshore company in those days. I think they still are. I graduated with an engineering degree with software programming as one of my core skills, and next thing I know, I'm, you know, sitting in a basement and writing code, and in early nineties, got a passport and then landed up in Colombia as a coder?

[00:16:31] As an offshore coder, I didn't speak Spanish. I mean, it was nothing. You know, it was no slum dog stuff. It was just pretty basic. Everybody did the same thing and so did I.

[00:16:41] Aaron - Interview: Yeah. So Colombia, maybe you could tell what that was like going from India to Colombia.

[00:16:45] Ashish: That was a big one. Right? So that I think, you know, that, uh, had nothing to do with coding. I mean, honestly, that was kind of the first time I experienced freedom, right?

[00:16:52] I had my own toilet. I mean, you know, not to be crass or anything like that, but that's a, you know, it's a big thing. It's like, you know, I had to share a toilet growing up in India, and when I landed up in Bogota, I was just like, wow, I have my own toilet.

[00:17:04] You know, if you've not had that freedom, most people in America can't relate to this. For me, it was like this aha moment. I'm like, ah, that's what freedom feels like, right? To sit on a toilet seat and not be yelled at to vacate. It is freedom. That for me was this, oh, I am never leaving, right?

[00:17:20] Aaron - Interview: So, and when you say sharing a toilet, you don't mean with your family?

[00:17:23] Ashish: Oh, I'm not talking about, you know, like...now my kids have their own toilet. One human being per toilet. Right. This is America, which is insane. No, I'm talking about like other families. My grandmother used to live in a, you know, where you have like 16 other families, these are these little boxes or homes or whatever you want to call it.

[00:17:39] And then all the families have a common toilet. Well, it's like a public toilet, right? And that's a big difference, right? And, and for me, that kind of shaped kind of my thinking around freedom and my thinking around, uh...you can or cannot take for granted.

[00:17:57] I ask people like, what was their first experience of freedom, and most people can't answer it. I can. I can tell you the minute and the moment because I sat on a toilet seat and didn't get bothered. You know, I was 22 years old. So it's , you know, it's, it's what it is, right?

[00:18:15] Aaron - Narration: After working in Columbia for a few years, it was in 1994 that Ashish moved to the US to take a programming job in Boston, which then led to work in other parts of the country. And the timing was just right exactly as the internet boom began to take shape.

[00:18:34] Aaron - Interview: How did you pivot from just being a programmer, working for paycheck, to becoming a startup founder?

[00:18:41] Ashish: So again, nothing crazy. Pretty stereotypical, right? It was the late nineties, it's 96, 97. You know, internet was just coming to be, I wasn't poor anymore, but now I wanted to be rich.

[00:18:53] Right? So kind of the, you know, , the pride and greed, you know, kicks in, right? It's just, you know, we're all flawed. I'm probably more flawed than most human beings.

[00:19:02] And it was the right place at the right time. I took the leap. I knew there was a need for technology solutions that people were willing to pay a premium on. You know, developing a website, you could make 20, 30 grand. You know, today you can do it for free.

[00:19:17] And that's it, right? So again, I'm being, being very honest with you, right? I wish I could add a better story. It like, I'm just, I didn't have any this great aha moment. I'm just like, Hey man, you know, I can make some serious money and, and be my own boss.

[00:19:33] So I started a couple of companies got into the whole supply chain side of things, you know, that that's kind of where I spent most of my time in that period. 1994 through 2012 is kind of when I sold my last startup, and that was the, the ticket out of not just poverty, but you know, this is kind of where you start making money.

[00:19:57] Aaron - Narration: In my experience, successful startup founders also have plenty of failures. We don't often talk about these very much, so I made sure to ask Ashish about his. I anticipated a story or two about a business idea that fell apart, or that was too early for its time. But instead it prompted a story that tells about how Ashish came to the world of social impact. This experience almost derailed him entirely from his ambitions to do good.

[00:20:26] Ashish: It's interesting you asked about failure. One of my biggest failures was when the Haiti earthquake happened, and this has kind of shaped my path out of the startup world.

[00:20:38] If you may, you know, when the Haiti earthquake happened in 2010, we were doing really good as a business. I was running a company called Forward Hindsight, and you know, I always wanted to do something in poverty, right? Just going back to where I was born and everything. So I was doing, you know, cutting checks for NGOs and everything.

[00:20:53] But when the Haiti earthquake happened, my founder and I, and he's even my founder today, Jeff Kaiser, I think you've met him, we decided that we wanted to do something. You know, basically shut down the company for two weeks and we raised 48 tons of supplies, you know, using our business network, right?

[00:21:12] We leaned on our network and for Haiti in two weeks and man, it was an ego trip. Amazing. I mean, I was on every news cover, local channel, NPR. I mean, I have a big head, and my head was like, 10 times its size. It's this massive ego trip, right? Like CEO of a company does this, this, and that.

[00:21:31] Yet it's my biggest failure in life by far compared to anything else I've done is because yes, we got all that into Haiti, but six months later, what we found out was none of the stuff had moved. And Haiti was worse off financially, even though $8 billion had poured into Haiti.

[00:21:51] And people like me had taken a lot of credit for doing good work, yet I had nothing to show for it, right? And that's kind of when I realized that this whole notion of not really understanding the last mile is bad. You just take a philanthropy approach, which is what I had done.

[00:22:10] It was a great ego feeder for me, but it was a complete disaster. It was driven with so much pity and almost no dignity. That, that's kind of when it really bothered me that I'm like, oh my God, I failed so badly.

[00:22:25] Aaron - Narration: Ashish, around that time, sold his last company and found himself wondering how he could really help in a way that actually made a difference. It turned out the Haiti experience, as disappointing as it was, propelled him to a better understanding of how to help.

[00:22:41] Ashish: Kind of that oh, oh no moment in life, right? And I was just like, wait a minute. You know, all the money and effort is just wasted, right? It's, it's all driven by our need for pride and greed. Yet, at the end of the day, we are not solving problems.

[00:22:58] So when I sold the last startup in 2012, I always wanted to do something, but I didn't want to give away my money or any of that. I didn't wanna do an NGO thing. Definitely wasn't doing a Haiti 2.0 again, right.

[00:23:11] So I happened to know some friends who had mentioned to me about this USAID guys, and I know about USAID obviously, and that they were looking to start a social enterprise in the Congo and they were looking for a business CEO. But they didn't have a lot of money and it was a thing that they wanted to try and I didn't need the money, so I said, "Hey, you know, I'm, I'm happy to be CEO, but I don't want to get paid. So I'll be your volunteer CEO. I'll sign up for a couple years and see what happens."

[00:23:45] So one thing led to another, and I'm on a plane to the DRC as a, and they don't actually call it CEO. You know, it's like a goofy title. It's called Chief of, Chief of Party, right, which is like an official title that USAID uses for the guy or the woman who's in charge.

[00:24:02] So I was the chief of party for the social enterprise. So it was a public private partnership where, you know, USA puts an X amount of money and then private enterprises put an X amount of money and then, you know, you have somebody like me run it.

[00:24:18] Aaron - Interview: And what was the, what was the venture idea?

[00:24:20] Ashish: It's, it's a platform called Asili, A-S-I-L-I. And the idea was to create opportunity linkages for farmers and healthcare workers in a way that creates a job economy. But you know, has a direct impact on reducing infant child mortality, because of very high rates, right, in those parts of the world.

[00:24:43] I had this massive giant ego. I still do, but I'm much lower than the doormat today. But in those days I was just like, Hey, sold a startup. You know, how hard can it be? I've always wanted to end poverty, so let's do it. Right. So stupid. I mean, God, I look back at myself in 2013 and I'm like, you know, "idiot" would not even begin to describe who I was, but it's what it is. Right?

[00:25:04] And, and so I jumped with both feet in, and honestly, it just, it kind of destroyed me, you know. Because I think most people are able to separate what they see, and then they take this approach around charity and pity. You know, it's kind of...I talked to a lot of people, I'd read a lot of books on Congo and everything, and everybody had this kind of badge of honor of going and doing work in Africa and then coming and telling their friends and family about it.

[00:25:31] I couldn't do that. I, I just went toe deep and deep and deep and deep that I just, it kept eating at me. That we live in a world where there is disparity, but disparity to this extent that's intertwined with supply chains. That's the motivation that drives me today and, and then the live examples are the child labor that happens in places like Congo, even today.

[00:25:59] Yet, we would use a smartphone for $800, right? I'm guilty. I'm one on one right now. You know you'll pay $12 for a latte that says a hundred percent ethically sourced Congolese coffee. It's not true. Right, right. Uh, you know, or you will, you will basically buy a bottle of water that says a hundred percent recycled PET that I know is being picked up at a landfill outside of Lusaka, Zambia, right?

[00:26:27] And I think the, the two years, honestly, I did not do any good in my humble opinion. I just unlearned everything that I thought I knew and kind of really when that incident happened with the mama farmer, it was the lowest point in my life because I was just like--and I get emotional about it because I was just like--it just does not make any sense here is that if, if we cannot even let this mother have a bank account that establishes her existence as a human being, who is actually the most productive person of this supply chain at the end of the day, right? Right. And her children are being forced into child labor, then all of our, you know, victory that philanthropists or corporations claim of progress we've made...

[00:27:25] Yes, we've made progress. But man, if you're standing next to that mother, you will feel that you are in middle Earth and you have made zero progress. And that's the piece that kind of hit me. And then I quit. You know, I'm, I'm not a quitter, but I quit. I just, I couldn't deal with it. I just quit at the end of 2014 and I said, um, I just can't look these people in the eye. Because we were getting awards. I mean, we won awards. I mean, we won the Battery Ventures Award, we won the Design Thinking Award, and I won the Clinton Global Initiative Award, and I'm like, man, I, I feel ashamed here.

[00:28:04] Aaron - Interview: Your story about Haiti and your story about working in the Congo too. It's the same, it's the same story in the sense that a lot of resources and a lot of good intentions are not enough. We need better and deeper understanding of the problems we're trying to tackle.

[00:28:18] And it sounds like your time, there was just a really intense sort of like advanced degree, right, in what the issues of poverty are really about.

[00:28:29] Ashish: Yeah. And it turns out it was never about resources, right? And for me, that is the piece that I struggle with even today. It's like, you know...you hear a lot of these commitments and pledges. And I'm honestly like extremely vanilla, right? I try to de-complex everything. I just ask a very, very, very basic question. If that sweater is 100% ethically sourced then the CEO of the company that made it needs to sit down with me and show me the one or two or three farmers that grew the cotton, show me their last three years worth of income and that it has gone up.

[00:29:09] That's it. I'm not asking for anything more.

[00:29:12] Aaron - Narration: Let's take a break here for a word from our sponsor.

[00:29:16] --

[00:29:16] Leading an ethical career can sometimes feel like navigating through a wilderness full of pitfalls and other dangers. Having good intentions isn't enough. What you need are ethical skills. The Business Ethics Field Guide leads you through the trickiest of ethical challenges.

[00:29:35] Based on extensive research involving hundreds of dilemmas faced at work and written by authors with decades of experience, the book guides you through the 13 most common ethical dilemmas that people face. It gives you the expertise and tools you need to navigate them safely. But more than just keeping you safe, it also trains you to be an ethical leader that others can follow with trust and confidence. You can find the Business Ethics Field Guide at Amazon, Apple Books, Audible, and meritleadership.com.

[00:30:10] --

[00:30:10] The problem that BanQu is tackling today is not hard technologically. By that I mean to say that we have all the tools we need for truly transparent supply chains. We could, for example, know the name of the farmer who grew the cotton in the jeans that we wear, or the cocoa in the chocolate bar that we eat.

[00:30:31] The problem instead is that opaque supply chains serve the people who control them. It allows them to hide what they don't want us to see. This is what BanQu is working to change.

[00:30:42] Aaron - Interview: So supply chain issues are fascinating because they become really murky and blurry really quickly. Companies will buy massive amounts of inputs into their business, right? Whether it's like cobalt to go into cell phone batteries or, or cotton to go into the the sweater that you're wearing. But they don't even necessarily know where that comes from. Why don't they know?

[00:31:04] Ashish: So I think why they don't know the simpler answer is that they are accustomed to not knowing and making a lot of money on not knowing.

[00:31:15] So let me unpack that. Okay? Yeah. And this part is important. I'm a big believer, right? If you, if you really cannot explain the problem, then the solution is useless. Okay? So, so let's unpack the cotton piece. A smallholder farmer in Ghana, Uganda, Zambia, Pakistan, Uyghur region in China, wherever, right. When a smallholder farmer brings the first bale of cotton and gives it to a cooperative, or a trader, or a buyer--chain of custody, classic supply chain 101-- the problem is very simple to define, articulate, and pinpoint, which is: that farmer has no ability to prove their existence when it comes to quality, quantity, and price in a way that both parties have agreed, and in a way, everybody upstream agrees that that happened. Okay.

[00:32:18] And nothing to do with technology. It is basic human trade 101 going back 500 years. Right? And now the, the black box begins. Okay. Yeah. The black box begins when that middle man then says, I'm gonna buy from five other farmers at different qualities, commingle it and it sell it upstream where now there is no transparency of price, quality, and quantity.

[00:32:49] So then what happens? A certifying agency shows up, you know, fair trade or whatever, right? Everybody shows up and they start certifying saying It's ethical cotton, it's sourced good environmental practices and things like that. And everybody's looking at that black box.

[00:33:06] The problem with the black box is that that black box cannot tie back to the individual farmer, right? So if I have five farmers that are coming into one cooperative or one aggregation point, these farmers crop is co-mingled. So if I'm the middle man, I can squeeze them and because they have to feed their child. What leverage do you have as a farmer in that conversation on the Zambia/Congo border on the Uganda/Tanzania border? Your leverage is zero. If you're Uyghur Muslim in China, your leverage is zero. Okay? But then everybody shows up in the middle. They certify it. You walk into a store and buy ethically sourced cotton, feeling really good about it as a consumer, right?

[00:33:59] So the problem now is very simple to describe, which is that there are at least a billion people, maybe 750 million people in the world today, who are those farmers, who are those waste pickers--it's the same thing when it comes to recycling, no different on just on the other side of the supply chain--who on a daily basis are providing the raw materials for global supply chain, yet cannot prove their existence in that global supply chain beyond the measure of doubt.

[00:34:32] And, and that is why these people continue to be unbanked and in extreme poverty and no rights, human rights violations and everything, because they have no proof.

[00:34:48] Aaron - Narration: I called this episode Expanding Access to Proof, but it really is referring to two kinds of proof. One of them is the proof that the mama farmer deserves to show how much she made and why she deserves a bank account.

[00:35:01] But the other way that BanQu expands access to proof is providing proof to customers to know that the products they're buying really have the impact that they claim. BanQu is essentially offering a product to companies that helps them to prove it.

[00:35:18] So with this explanation of the problem, how is BanQu going to fix this? Humanity creates black boxes because somebody uses them to profit. What are the incentives for those running our supply chains to start adding transparency in a way that allows everyone to be treated with dignity?

[00:35:35] Ashish: Great question. In my opinion, the way to disrupt the black box, it relies on the shoulders of CEOs, boards, investors, and corporations.

[00:35:46] I love NGOs. I love government agencies, but the commerce piece, which is directly tied to the last mile, at least 75% of that is moving through global brands of their everyday products. Coffee, cacao, maize, corn, wheat, rice, plastic paper, cardboard, cobalt. Right? So the CEOs of these companies who are at the top end, right?Tier, tier zero, and the tier five is downstream.

[00:36:15] They have to have the courage to tell the black box that I won't buy from you if you can't show me the visibility. Look, 20% of the middlemen are gonna be horrible. I've had a couple of death threats, but I think 80% in my opinion, like I always look at the good side, 80% or 75% of the middle men are also poor people. They're just, you know, do a good living.

[00:36:38] The gap is that the CEOs are not really enforcing this level of traceability because they're getting away by saying, I'm gonna make a pledge for sustainability. I'm gonna say everything is gonna be great by 2030. Have an awesome brochure. Go to COP 27, tell the world a hundred percent of my farmers are gonna be regenerated by 2030. Get a awesome pat on the back. Nobody's really asking the question "But how?" So this is, disruption has to happen at the leadership level.

[00:37:12] Aaron - Interview: Are there examples of CEOs that are doing it right? I know you work with some. Are there examples that come to mind that illustrate the right way to approach this sort of transparent supply chain?

[00:37:23] Ashish: Oh, absolutely. I mean, you know the one second share with you publicly, right? So like you look at Solvay. It, it's a big chemical company, and their CEO, Ilham, their Chief Sustainability Officer, Lynn. You know, we started working with them a couple years ago and they're like, "Hey, you know, we sell gum to L'Oreal, right?" The shampoo company and the cosmetic company. "But we wanna be able to prove that the farmers that we buy, the base seed," It's called guar, that makes it gum. "We wanna know who they are. We wanna know if they're being paid. We wanna know if their income's growing up."

[00:37:56] And they have now rolled us out in India, right? For thousands of farms. So you have a CEO of a chemical company who is a for-profit company--so is BanQu right, we're a for-profit company--but recognizes that I wanna actually do what I'm gonna tell the world I'm gonna do. Right. You know, we work with Coca-Cola, we work with Wilmer, AB and Bev, right? But honestly, I also tell people, right, look for every Solvay that we run, there's 15 of them out there that will tell the world that they're gonna have a hundred percent of their farmers, uh, doing regenerative agriculture, but they couldn't name one farmer and show their income history right? And that's the piece that unfortunately hasn't happened. The scale hasn't happened.

[00:38:42] Aaron - Narration: There are forces at work to incentivize companies to be more sustainable. The ESG movement is part of this. ESG stands for "environment, social and governance," and it describes efforts to account for the impact that companies have outside of their financial returns.

[00:39:00] But ESG has a long way to go.

[00:39:03] Ashish: So I think, I think honestly the ESG trend is the right thing. It's the right, you know, wake up call. Where it is headed in my humble opinion is in the absolute wrong direction. And, and that's why, you know, I call it this unfounded climate romance where yes, we wanna save every plastic bottle, but oh, by the way, a poor mother on the shores of Port-Au-Prince in Haiti is picking up the bottles and not gonna make $1.90.

[00:39:29] People are like, oh, I don't wanna worry about that right now. I am saving the planet because this bottle is 100% recycled. That's an absolute lie, right? What happened to the families? Were they compensated? If you are saying 100% of our cacao farmers in Ghana are gonna be regenerated farmers, and you are gonna charge me 14% premium at a Whole Foods on a bag of cacao that says that, then show me the income rise of those smallholder farmers in Ghana has not happened since 2018.

[00:40:06] So yes, you can put out an awesome ESG brochure that says region regenerative agriculture, water conservation, carbon credits, but if you can't back it...I'm yet to find one.

[00:40:20] You know, we've lost clients, right? We've lost clients because they'll say, "Hey, you're opening a can of worms that I can't handle." And that's the piece that, that what I call is the green washing, which is a danger, right? Because we are not solving the actual problem....

[00:40:37] Recycled batteries. Here's another one. Look at the amount of ESG press we're getting for recycled batteries because cobalt is going, you know, low. But where are these batteries being picked up at? They're being picked up at landfills across India and Nigeria by children under the age of 10!

[00:40:57] Aaron - Narration: As consumers, we also benefit from the black box supply chains. It's because we can buy what we want without having to know the consequences of our choices. There's a movement pioneered by companies like Ben and Jerry's, Method, Allbirds, and others to change this, to make us all more ethical consumers. Ashish is a skeptic though of both the power and the behavior of consumers in wealthy countries.

[00:41:22] Aaron - Interview: Consumers want to live ethically. I mean, you talk about the example of buying a, you know, an ethically sourced sweater. Ethical consumption, today in the modern world with supply chains the way they are, feels nearly impossible because it feels like every time you buy a product that makes a promise of some kind, you really have no way of knowing if that promise is being kept.

[00:41:44] So what thoughts do you have for the people who want to be ethical consumers? What are the things that you wish they were focusing on, the questions they were asking, the benchmarks they were looking for to add more pressure to the brands and the suppliers to improve this?

[00:41:59] Ashish: Man. Great question. I'm gonna give you unpopular answer. I think the, the, there's a misnomer that the consumer has a voice.

[00:42:08] Um, and this is gonna piss off some listeners here, uh, and I, I'll give you a simple example, right? If you ask a group of teenagers, right, "Here's a hundred dollars, and go purchase a ethically sourced pair of jeans or lipstick in Provo, Utah, right? Or you can buy four pairs of jeans at H&M." Okay. What do you think they'll do?

[00:42:31] Right? And, and yes, there's a lot of noise around, you know, the consumer's voice. Consumers are buying ethically sourced. But you know, I, I ask myself or ask anybody, you walk into a Whole Foods, you see a bag of coffee that says ethically fair-trade, organic source, right?

[00:42:47] Do you actually just buy it and go feeling good about it? Or you say, wait a minute, right? I'm gonna take the next three days, start calling and find out "What's the income stream of the Guatemala farmer that is on this bag of coffee?" You're not gonna do that, right? So, so I'm not saying...I love the consumer angle, right? But I don't think the consumer has a strong enough voice. It's just because our, our buying habits are tied to shiny objects.

[00:43:20] Aaron - Interview: Yeah. And we don't have the three days to go do the research to make sure the farmer in Guatemala has been paid well.

[00:43:25] Ashish: Exactly. I'm just trying to shine a reality light, right? The problem needs to be solved at the CEO purchasing and, and corporate governance and the board level, right? If, if CEOs can stand up and say, "If I said that 100% of my plastic is recycled and my packaging, then I need to know over the next five years, every single landfill where my plastic's coming from, and I wanna know if the waste pickers are getting out of poverty."

[00:43:54] Aaron - Narration: BanQu is now operating in 58 countries and 13 languages. It's also won awards or praise from the UN, the International Finance Corporation, Fortune Magazine, and host of others. Its clients include Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch, and Mars. So what's next for the company and for Ashish?

[00:44:16] Ashish: I, I think the unique problems we are wrestling with right now is getting people to recognize that ESG and supply chains are intertwined and the blind spot is at the source, not upstream.

[00:44:34] So that's a big challenge, right? I mean, I mean, I have emails from CEOs who say, "Love what you're doing, but you know, right now we're focusing on our ESG commitments." I mean, think about that for a second. I have emails from CEOs saying that, and I'm like, "Am I like completely losing my mind?" Right?

[00:44:52] But, but in, in their mind, the ESG commitment is the end game, not the work. Okay. So that's, that's a challenge. Uh, the second challenge is that, you know, in a, in a recession economy, right, do people really follow through, right? In a recession economy, you are going to hunker down and squeeze downstream your suppliers. And the minute you do that, the suppliers are gonna say, "Hey, they're not really gonna care if I bought it ethically or unethically." Right? So that's, that's a challenge.

[00:45:24] And then the last challenge I always run into, which is this personal to me, is that oftentimes I find myself in conversations where people will go, "What are you talking about?" Right? Because they have not taken the time to understand their own supply chain. So when I say there's a farmer on the Zambia/Congo border who reads SMS uses mobile money and wants to prove that this is the cotton she sold her, they're like, "That's not on our radar for this year." And I'm going, whoa, whoa.

[00:46:00] So that's the challenge. I think. What's next? Is in my humble opinions, continue the fight, right? It's, you know, our goal is a hundred million people and a hundred million business. We're coming up about 15 million people by the end of this year, about 4 million in revenue. So it's still a long way to go, right?

[00:46:18] But a hundred million is a drop in the bucket, man. I mean, it's like, you know, we'll get to a hundred million. That's not an issue. The bigger problem is, you know, we need, we need more BanQus out there.

[00:46:28] Aaron - Interview: What advice do you have for the people out there who aspire to tackle the big, complex problems like you are?

[00:46:34] Ashish: Man, I'm nobody to give any advice. I'm a big believer in the power of one, right? Which is that no matter how complex your supply chain is, right, if you can go all the way to the one waste picker, or the one farmer, or the one worker, and ensure that over the next three years that you have step changed without any pity, with all dignity and commerce, right?

[00:47:08] That's the power of one. Help if it has an undertone of pity is the worst thing you can do to somebody. Help without pity is really dignity, and I think that's, it's a hard, hard thing to do, right? Because we were all raised with this, you know, "Let's help somebody." But it comes from this place of pity, and that's, in my opinion, pity then ties to your own pride and greed, and it's very hard to unwind.

[00:47:37] Aaron - Narration: What is it that keeps Ashish and his team motivated to reach a hundred million people? What is it about BanQu that makes all of these people wake up and work so hard at this every day? Well, it's stories like this one.

[00:47:51] Ashish: About three or four years ago, I met this young woman in Colombia, in Colombia. And she had a little child, maybe three or four years old. And she's a waste picker. And we were rolling out, you know, same software except on the recycling side. And I saw her at the corner, she was sitting, she had a book in her hand. And I walked up to her and I said, "Hey, what's in the book?" Right?

[00:48:12] And it was a notebook. It was a very neat leader in handbook. And it had three years worth of every single kilo of every single material that she has sold at that buyback center, the landfill. And you know, I still get the chills and I'm like, "You know, you are so smart." Right? She's like, "But it's useless because no bank is willing to give me a decent loan so I can take my kid out of the slum and we can buy a, you know, one room place. Because this book doesn't really validate who I am." You know? Now fast forward, she's on BanQu and everything, but I think the point is that I think that is the inspiration.

[00:48:58] Aaron - Narration: Ultimately, this is what it means when we have the luxury of proof. We can prove that we're a person who matters in this huge complex world that we navigate. We can get the loan, or rent the car, or buy the apartment because we can prove that we belong.

[00:49:15] When Ashish describes the power of the one, he's saying that nobody should be denied the right to proof. Blockchain for BanQu is just an efficient way to make that happen. But all the systems, tools, programs, or strategies we deploy in making the world a better place will fail if we don't make everyone count.

[00:49:38] I am so grateful to Ashish Gadnis for his time and for sharing his experiences. Talking with him is energizing, and I hope you felt the same thing listening to him. In the show notes, you can find links for all the things that we discussed, and there's also a transcript on our website.

[00:49:56] Next episode, we'll hear from the veteran science and tech journalist David Pogue. He's been reporting on human innovation for decades and has won multiple Emmys and other awards for his work. You've seen him over the years in programs and outlets like PBS's, Nova, CBS Sunday Morning, The New York Times, and his new podcast, Unsung Science. Our discussion will be on science and tech for good. We'll be talking about everything from AI to climate change, from sharks to space travel. It's going to be a fun and enlightening episode.

[00:50:31] If you enjoy How to Help, please take a moment to give us a positive review in your podcast app. This helps us immensely to reach more listeners. And the other thing that helps is to share. If you have a favorite episode, please put it on social media, send it to friends. It means a lot to us.

[00:50:49] If you want to stay up to date with the podcast and my other work, subscribe to the How to Help email newsletter where I share ideas for how to have more meaning in your life and in your work. You can subscribe or read the archives how-to-help.com.

[00:51:04] This episode is written and recorded by me. Our production team for this season has included Ty Bingham, yours truly, and Joseph Sandholtz, who also mixes our audio. Our amazing music comes from the Pleasant Pictures Music Club, and if you want to use their music in your projects, you can find a link and a discount code in our show notes.

[00:51:24] Finally, as always, thank you so much for listening. I'm Aaron Miller, and this has been How to Help.

Finding and Developing Good Ideas • Dr. Cecilia Conrad, CEO of Lever for Change • s02e06

Finding and Developing Good Ideas • Dr. Cecilia Conrad, CEO of Lever for Change • s02e06

Summary

What would you do with $800,000 that came with no strings attached? This actually happens to about two dozen MacArthur Fellows every year.

Or better yet, a grant of $100 million, like MacArthur gave away in its 100 and Change program? It sounds exhilarating, but what if getting the money depended on you having a good idea for how to use it?

Dr. Cecilia Conrad's work is finding and developing good ideas, formerly as the Managing Director of the MacArthur Fellowships, and now as the CEO of Lever for Change, an affiliate of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In these roles, she's led the effort to: find and support the most creative people in the US, fund and support the organizations making big impacts on the world, and change how big philanthropy is done today.

In this episode we'll learn Dr. Conrad's insights from the secret selectors of MacArthur fellows, what it's like being one of the few Black women in Economics, and what it was like growing up in Dallas during the height of the Civil Rights movement. Most of all, we'll learn about the how to find and develop the overlooked great ideas that waiting to be discovered.

About Our Guest

Cecilia A. Conrad, Ph.D. is Senior Advisor, Collaborative Philanthropy and MacArthur Fellows and CEO of Lever for Change.

Dr. Conrad was formerly a Managing Director at the MacArthur Foundation, where she led the Fellows program and steered the cross-Foundation team that created MacArthur’s 100&Change—an athematic, open call competition that periodically makes a single $100 million grant to help solve a critical problem of our time. She continues to manage the 100&Change competition.

Before joining the Foundation in January 2013, Conrad had a distinguished career as both a professor and an administrator at Pomona College in Claremont, CA. She held the Stedman Sumner Chair in Economics and is currently a Professor of Economics, Emerita. She served as Associate Dean of the College (2004-2007), as Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the College (2009-2012), and as Acting President (Fall 2012). From 2007-2009, she was interim Vice President and Dean of the Faculty at Scripps College.

Before joining the faculty at Pomona College, Dr. Conrad served on the faculties of Barnard College and Duke University. She was also an economist at the Federal Trade Commission and a visiting scholar at The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Dr. Conrad received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Wellesley College and her Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University.

Useful Links

The MacArthur Fellowship Program

The Lever for Change Foundation

The 100 & Change program

Dr. Conrad explains the MacArthur Fellows program at MIT (YouTube)

Wikipedia's list of all MacArthur Fellows

Pleasant Pictures Music

Join the Pleasant Pictures Music Club to get unlimited access to high-quality, royalty-free music for all of your projects. Use the discount code HOWTOHELP15 for 15% off your first year.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Aaron - Interview: And listening to the MIT talk that you gave, this is from about four years ago. There's a YouTube video

[00:00:05] Dr. Conrad: Oh, about the Fellows program?

[00:00:06] Aaron - Interview: About the fellows program. I was like, that is so cool.

[00:00:10] Dr. Conrad: Well, it sounds like you have had jobs nearly as cool as mine. Not as cool because mine is the coolest in the world. But it sounds like yours comes close.

[00:00:19] Aaron - Narration: Hi I, Aaron Miller. And this is How to Help, a podcast about having a life and career with meaning, integrity, and impact. This is season two, episode six, Finding and Growing Good Ideas. This episode of How To Help is sponsored by Merit Leadership, home of The Business Ethics Field Guide.

[00:00:43] How to Help is still a small podcast, and so I hope you'll take a moment to give us a rating with Apple Podcasts or to share an episode on social media with your friends. I can't tell you how much it means to us. It really is the best way for this podcast to grow. If you're right now hearing your first episode of the show, I hope that by the end you want to give us a glowing review. Thank you for listening.

[00:01:08] Imagine waking up on a typical morning. You get yourself some breakfast, you shower, and get ready for your day. If you have kids, you maybe get them off to school. These days you might be working from home, so you start to settle in and get to work. You notice that earlier while you were in the shower, someone called your cell phone from a number that you don't recognize, and they didn't leave a message.

[00:01:38] You don't think anything of it. But now the same number is calling you again. You ignore it, knowing that it's probably a telemarketer or something like that. Your phone also notes that the call is coming from a Chicago area code. You wonder, "Do I know anyone in Chicago?" This time though, they call you back right away.

[00:01:59] With a sigh you answer, half expecting a recorded voice to tell you that you've been selected for a free weekend getaway at a new development of timeshare condos or something like that. Instead, a woman with an irrepressibly cheerful voice introduces herself.

[00:02:18] "My name is Cecilia Conrad, and I'm the Managing Director of the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship Program. I'm happy to tell you that you've been selected as a MacArthur Fellow."

[00:02:31] She goes on to explain that this fellowship is in recognition of your remarkably creative work and that it comes with an award of $800,000, paid out quarterly over the next five years. There are no strings attached, not even an obligation to report back on how you'd use the money.

[00:02:49] They will, however, include your name, photo, and bio in their annual announcement of MacArthur Fellows, basically telling the world that they consider you one of the most intelligent and creative people working in the United States. You'll be joining a list of famous names like: the musician, Lynn Manuel Miranda; the psychologist, Angela Duckworth; the author, Ibram X Kendi; and Tim Burners Lee, who invented the World Wide Web.

[00:03:21] Aaron - Interview: As the director of the fellowship program, you had the unique responsibility of calling fellows to notify them that they had been awarded this amazing and life changing fellowship. Can you kind of describe the moment of that phone call and do you have any favorite stories about what that was like?

[00:03:37] Dr. Conrad: It's the best part. It's really exciting. It's our whole team now participates in it. So when I came in as a director, tradition was the director would make the call and our team would kind of sit around the table and we would all listen in. After a couple years of doing that, I started inviting other team members to be the ones who made the call.

[00:03:53] As I said before, fellows are almost always surprised. Sometimes we've asked, you know, "Are you someplace where you can have a confidential conversation?" That's usually our second sentence, and the fellow will say, "Oh, I'm on. I'm driving on the highway." "Well, would you please get off the highway and park before we tell you what we're going to have to tell?"

[00:04:12] There's a famous story. My predecessor knew someone had just had a baby and they said, "Are you holding your new baby? Please put the baby down." As a way of making sure that they don't really lose it.

[00:04:21] There's sometimes the reactions fall into stunned silence. So much so that you have to ask, "Are you still there? Are you okay?" There's the ones who are convinced that we are a joke. One musician kept saying, "Is this Joe? Or "Joe, or, this is a terrible joke to play on me." Kept going on and on about that. There's tears. There's a sort of, you know, hysteria and then these moments of sanity. One of our fellows was excited and exclaiming and just really, you know, overjoyed and then all of a sudden in a completely calm voice said, "I think I'm going to buy a new dress."

[00:04:57] So, those kinds of things are just, it's, it's fun.

[00:05:02] Aaron - Narration: The experiences just described happen to around two dozen people every year. The professions include everything from mathematicians to musicians, from poets to physicians. This year's crop includes an ornithologist, a criminologist, and an astrodynamicist. As diverse as they all are in profession and life experience, they all have certain things in common.

[00:05:28] Dr. Conrad: They are generally really humble people. And so many of them just are, are taken aback and they start to question why them. So when we describe for them the process, the fact that this is not coming from us per se, picking them, we're guiding a process and it's really a statement from their colleagues, from their field that they are viewed as someone who's exceptionally creative, that kind of helps them start to grapple with no, they haven't made a mistake. Although, they tell me they still think that even years later that we made a mistake. I don't think we have.

[00:06:05] Aaron - Narration: My guest today is Dr. Cecilia Conrad. She's a Stanford trained economist, the former managing director of the MacArthur Fellowship Program, and current CEO of MacArthur's Lever for Change Foundation. In addition to decades of experience in higher education and philanthropy, she's become an expert and learning how to find and cultivate good ideas.

[00:06:30] Finding those ideas is no easy task. Many refer to these fellowships as genius grants, but the Foundation isn't looking for genius per se. What they're trying to find is exceptional creativity. There are patterns to how this emerges, common experiences that cultivate good ideas.

[00:06:51] Dr. Conrad: Yes, we're looking for exceptional creativity. So I call it the Big C creativity. And what we've observed is that it sometimes emerges from people who've had almost some sort of dislocation experience. They might be people who have switched between one discipline and another, and are in the new discipline and they see something and it recalls something that they'd seen before. And they make this connection that nobody else thought about.

[00:07:19] So it's frequently about drawing connections that are unexpected. It could be that they are someone who has moved from one country to another and brings a different kind of lens or perspective to how you see a problem and what possible solutions there might be to it.

[00:07:35] There are people who are testing boundaries and also are willing to, to possibly fail. And I think that's, that's one of the areas that we really hope that the fellowship gives people some freedom to do. So what we do when we pick a fellow is we say, "All right, here's an unrestricted award and you can do whatever you want and we're not going to ask you to report back."

[00:07:55] Many of them do, even without us asking. But the hope is that some of what they do just may not turn out that well. And that's okay. You should have some freedom to do that.

[00:08:04] So we're looking for people who are striving to make the world better. And better, here, I'll say is including making the world happier, or making the world aesthetically more beautiful, all of those things would, would fall under this category of creativity.

[00:08:20] Aaron - Narration: We're going to learn more about Dr. Conrad later in the episode, but first I want us to explore more deeply how the MacArthur Foundation finds and chooses its fellows. It's here that I'll say that there's no point in aspiring to a MacArthur Fellowship. While the foundation is very open about the process, it maintains strict secrecy about the participants and the potential fellows whom it's considering.

[00:08:46] Dr. Conrad: THe selection committee is secret. Your membership on it is secret. We ask people who nominate to keep it a secret. We ask people who we ask to evaluate to keep it a secret. What's really amazing to me about the program is how thoroughly people keep the secret. There are people who haven't, but most of the time when we call a fellow and tell them that they have been named a MacArthur Fellow, they are really surprised they have not had that information leaked to them.

[00:09:13] So it, it, I think, is a measure of the respect people have for the program. It would also be a little cruel to tell people, you know, they're looking at you because then they'd be waiting every time we'd made an announcement. So I'm hoping people recognize that and that helps them keep the secret.

[00:09:27] Aaron - Narration: Why be so secret about it? What does the foundation accomplish by keeping quiet about the candidates?

[00:09:34] Dr. Conrad: We have all the secretiveness because we really want people to think about taking some risk. We're looking for people who have shown examples of exceptional creativity and have the potential for more in the future. And that means we want them to take risk, and that means that they may not be doing whatever is considered the mainstream or the cannon.

[00:09:54] They may be challenging the cannon in the field there that they're in. We find that people are much more willing to kind of acknowledge that, "Hey, this is a really new, exciting idea," when they're doing it in confidence.

[00:10:06] Aaron - Narration: And how do you find the most creative people in such a wide range of fields?

[00:10:12] Dr. Conrad: It, it's, it's an exciting program to be part of because we, as the, the staff always have to push ourselves because people are sometimes working in spaces we don't know anything about, and we have to understand what constitutes creativity in this particular space.

[00:10:28] Aaron - Narration: So how are people nominated? It turns out the foundation has built one of the most robust and impressive listening systems in the world. It gets constant feedback and direction from a network of secret nominators who live across the country and work in all kinds of industries.

[00:10:47] Dr. Conrad: Yeah, the nomination process is an important part of our process.

[00:10:51] So we each month try to identify a new group of people to invite to nominate. And nominators can nominate as many as they want. Many nominate one. Many tell us they don't have an idea at the moment. So that also happens.

[00:11:05] We try to find people who we think are at the nodes of networks who are in a position to be able to see what's new and exciting that's happening. We try to do that across all domains and fields. We try to do it across geographies. That's sometimes a little more difficult because just because you go to one geography doesn't mean the nominator is going to nominate from that geography. But, but that's something we're really mindful of because in the end, we want to construct a class that really captures the breadth of creativity in the United States.

[00:11:36] So we ask a new group every month as the nomination invitation stays open for a particular period of time. We churn that group in order to constantly make sure that we are finding who else is out there that we've missed. So we have a, a staff member who's just dedicated to trying to find the next nominators to invite.

[00:11:55] It's kind of a fun part of the process because we're out and about. We're attending conferences. We're watching. You know, one of the things that's been nice about the Covid world, that there's more content on the Internet, so we don't even have to go places and can kind of lurk in conferences and workshops to find people who we might want to invite as nominators.

[00:12:11] But that is the critical first step, is getting a diverse and broad group of nominators who give us names. Then after we've gotten those names, we reach out to people adjacent to the nominee. Further away from the nominee in a field that might use some of the nominees work.

[00:12:27] Aaron - Narration: This is obviously an exhaustive process. It's that way because their purpose isn't just a spot high achievers who have already done their great work. The goal instead is to find the next great creative geniuses.

[00:12:42] Dr. Conrad: We try to construct a file that really you can think of as having concentric circles really close in, really far out to get assessments of creativity.

[00:12:51] The thing we have to really push people on is that this is not a Nobel Prize, right? We're not looking for lifetime achievement. And sometimes it's hard because there are people we've missed that I look and go, "Gosh, they should have been a fellow way back when."

[00:13:05] We're looking ideally for people who are just like...if you think about a parabola and you're just reaching the top, or I guess I said parabola, that's my math background. You think about a hill, and we're tell not quite at the top of the hill. That's what we want. We want somebody just at the top of the hill and where maybe the Fellowship can accelerate what's going to happen next.

[00:13:23] Aaron - Narration: In addition to a network of nominators, the foundation also has a highly secretive selection committee, the members of which come from a wide range of backgrounds. It's in this role that Dr. Conrad first started working with the MacArthur Foundation. I have to say, it sounds like one of the most interesting jobs that a person could have.

[00:13:43] Dr. Conrad: Before each meeting, there's a big box that comes about a month before the meeting. And it's a box of materials. No, it's no longer a box. Now we send you a list for you to order your own electronic versions, but we used to send a box and, and that box would have stuff on opera, something on, you know, advanced analytical geometry. So you would be reading all this material, so you would learn from that process.

[00:14:07] But I think if you had the experience of being a critical reader and a critical thinker, when you read those evaluation letters, you can kind of start to understand what are they saying about what is--that's what you're looking for--what is the creativity in this work and how does it fit into the world in general?

[00:14:21] So that is a skill set they help you develop through the the committee work. It's like being in a really amazing seminar.

[00:14:28] Aaron - Interview: I love it. I have to say, after I heard you kind of describe that in another interview, the, I thought to myself, I get that people aspire to be MacArthur fellows, even though there's no way really to aspire to that because of how nomination works, but I just thought, man, the cool job is being on the selection committee.

[00:14:45] Dr. Conrad: You're right.

[00:14:48] Aaron - Interview: If I was given the choice, like if the two were sitting in front of me and it was just like, pick the one you want, Aaron, I would pick the selection committee a hundred times out of a hundred. It sounds so cool.

[00:14:56] Dr. Conrad: It's true, and one of the fun things is when I was on the secret selection committee, I sometimes tell people, I think this is how I ended up in the dean role, because I would be talking to fellow faculty at Pomona--and let's face economists don't have the reputation for being, what's the word I want?

[00:15:11] Well, you know, we're sometimes called the dismal.

[00:15:14] Aaron - Interview: The dismal science.

[00:15:15] Dr. Conrad: Dismal science. So people were always like a little taken aback walking with a colleague. And we were talking about this playwright, Suzan-Lori Parks, and, and actually the, the play I was talking about has just had a revival on Broadway called Topdog/Underdog. I brought this play up with this English professor who I knew was interested in this type of work. She was so stunned. "You've heard of her, like, oh my gosh, who are you? How have you heard of her?" It was great.

[00:15:41] And then another time I was walking to school with a physicist and I said to him, "You know what I'm trying to understand, I'm trying to understand what is this quantum computing business?" And he, he was looking... again, it really can make you just expand your horizons, probably more so than anything or time since when you were in college and you're learning stuff for the first time, and except in this case you're not going to have to pass an exam.

[00:16:01] Aaron - Narration: The kind of fellows who have been chosen over the years has shifted. Over time, the award has become a lens into what seems to matter most. For example, there were no computational virologists chosen in the 1981 inaugural class of fellows, but there was one last year, Dr. Trevor Bradford.

[00:16:21] Dr. Conrad: We always are paying attention to all the different dimensions one can look at in terms of the class. So we might adjust how many nominators we ask from what space based on where the classes have been. But in terms of topic areas, that process, that system itself organically adjusts, because if exciting creativity is happening in a particular space, we're going to get more nominations from that. If people have top of mind, and we can kind of see this in the pool of nominations that come in, that when we had Covid, we saw a lot more nominations about public health than about fighting viral diseases.

[00:16:58] When there's an issue around racial equity, we see more nominations come in in that space, so there's a way in which, relying on, essentially a kind of form of a participatory process. We're relying on people out there in the world to tell us where, or at least in the US to tell us where the creativity is happening.

[00:17:17] We're going to be responsive, even without consciously being responsive. So we don't start out and say, we want to give a nominee in who's strengthening democracy. I'll just use that as an example. We don't start out with that at all, but sometimes that will show up based on what kinds of nominations come in.

[00:17:35] Aaron - Interview: When you look at fellows, when you look at what makes them amazing, when you look at what makes them grant-worthy, when you look at what they've done after they've received their fellowships and what they've been able to accomplish because of the freedom that it provides, you know, what lessons can all of us take from the life experiences of these fellows?

[00:17:52] Dr. Conrad: So I'll go back to something I said earlier about the fact that I've noticed that this creativity tends to happen at the intersteces of things, right? And what I find is that sometimes we are, particularly when we're first starting out, we think that paths have to be linear. And that's not typically where the big creativity is emerging.

[00:18:13] It's emerging from, from non-linear paths. I remember one fellow who is now a neuroscientist, who was, I think an English literature major until close to senior year, and they had to fulfill a distribution requirement, and took this course, which later led to neurosciences as her field. So we should be open to those opportunities and try them.

[00:18:34] It's, it's not always possible. We all have to balance risk that we may have other responsibilities that may limit our ability to take risk. But, but when it's possible, I think it's important to take that, cause that's frequently, even if it doesn't leave you to being a MacArthur fellow, I think that's where people find their passions and their vocations as opposed to their careers.

[00:18:53] So one of the things that I think more of us, and I, I tell myself that, and I sort of did it when I left academia for this, that it's important to open that space for ourselves.

[00:19:04] Aaron - Narration: This advice to try new things and to take some risks is advice that Dr. Conrad has lived by herself. Let's take some time to get to know her better and her background.

[00:19:15] She was raised in Dallas, Texas during the height of the Civil Rights movement.

[00:19:20] Aaron - Interview: You had parents who were really active in advocating for Civil Rights, and I was wondering if you could maybe share some of your memories from that time growing up?

[00:19:27] Dr. Conrad: Yes, certainly. My parents are interesting. My mother grew up in Illinois and so was relatively new to the South when we moved there in 1955.

[00:19:35] My father was from Louisiana and the reason why we came to Dallas was that he was a surgeon, but hospitals in Louisiana wouldn't allow him access to practice his surgery. And the Catholic hospital in Dallas had decided just the year before to open up privileges for Black physicians. So that's what brought them to Dallas.

[00:19:56] But it's also important because one of the things my father explained to me was that neither one of them were really dependent on the private businesses or the white sort of power structure within the city for their income. And my father said that meant that they had some independence that they could exercise that other people in our community couldn't and felt that it was their responsibility to take a leadership role because they had that freedom, that independence.

[00:20:24] So early on, it was just, participating and going to rallies and being parts of conversations and watching my mother sit in at a bus station dressed to the nines in, in the suit--she was a great seamstress--the suit she had made for herself with matching handbag and shoes. And I remember looking at it thinking, I wasn't sure that if they did serve her, she would eat the food, but we never got to that point.

[00:20:47] But just being conscious of that is something that was part of what our family did. It was part of who we were.

[00:20:53] My father ended up running for our school board in Dallas. This would've been when I was in around junior high. He ran. For office. It was, he was the first black elected in a citywide election in Dallas, and that had to take place through a runoff. But that experience itself was eye-opening because of the mobilization work that my mother really led. And also just the kinds of phone calls we would get and the encounters with people who were not pleased about the idea of an African-American being on the school board.

[00:21:26] So that's kind of the family legacy sort of taught me that I, I had to figure out a career where I was going to be contributing to my community, to making the world a better place. And that's kind of how I ended up in economics.

[00:21:39] Aaron - Narration: If you're not familiar with the field, you might not know that the great majority of economists are white men. This meant entering a field that made her background and perspective quite unique.

[00:21:50] Dr. Conrad: I'm going to confess to you that my initial thought was, was I wanted to be an engineer. I was very good in math. It was, I loved math and it was, it was clear I was good in math. And I had this interest in public policy, what we now call social justice issues.

[00:22:04] And, but I, I thought I wanted to be an engineer. But I, I had a family friend who was an engineer for one of the oil companies who sort of dissuaded me. He said, well, and I'm sure he, he meant this in the best way. He said, well, it's hard enough to be a woman in engineering or to be a black in engineering, but to be a black woman in engineering would be just really, really difficult. He just didn't think the time was right and somehow that got a little bit into my psyche. B

[00:22:32] ut around this time--and really now we're talking 1968 and all of the things were happening kept me glued to the news--but one of the things that we probably don't remember is when they were negotiating one of the Brenton Woods's International Monetary Agreement. That was my first encounter with people who were called economists. I thought, what is this? This is something I don't know anything about. I started to understand that it was about issues such as economic growth, but also the distribution of income and wealth.

[00:22:58] But I didn't know any economists, and that probably helped because no one told me that there weren't any women and there weren't very many blacks and that, in fact, it's probably worse than engineering. I didn't really discover that until really after college, because I went to Wellesley where I was lucky enough to to, you know, have this amazing economics department where there were, my fellow students, were all women and many of the faculty were. And no one ever breathed that this wasn't a possible career path for us.

[00:23:25] So it wasn't until graduate school when I founded myself as one of two people, one of two women, and one of two black students in my entering class, that it hit me that it was going to be lonely.

[00:23:35] Aaron - Narration: Dr. Conrad earned her PhD in economics from Stanford University and began teaching at Duke, followed then by a career mostly in small liberal arts colleges. Her research started in a mainstream topic regulation, but her passions and interests eventually led her to break ground in overlooked issues like race and gender.

[00:23:57] Dr. Conrad: It took me a bit of time to give myself permission to focus in on the topics that were really near and dear to my heart, that could go back to the early days of what prompted me to be interested in economics, the economic status of the black community, issues of poverty and, and issues of gender.

[00:24:15] And those, initially, I, I sort of stayed clear of them and so my early work was more in the area of regulatory economics. But even when I was working on those, the model, the underlying modeling I was thinking of in terms of possible applications to understanding how labor markets work and, and how imperfect information can affect what outcomes turn out.

[00:24:36] I, eventually I ended up becoming and editing a special volume of Feminist Economics called "Race, Gender, Color, and Caste" that was about Intersectionality, a concept that was being developed in sociology and some other spaces and sort of transferring. What, how does that help us think about how the economics, how economics works, how labor markets work, how households work, which was an area that we were starting to think a bit about.

[00:25:03] I got interested in affirmative action really as an outgrowth of my interest in regulatory economics because you can think of affirmative action, particularly the affirmative action that was mandated as part of federal contracting as a form of regulation. And understanding what the arguments for were for that regulation and how it worked, kind of something else that attracted my attention, where I saw the parallels.

[00:25:26] Eventually, I got involved in the discussion about affirmative action in higher ed. I was asked to, to do some analysis of what the impact of Prop 209 might be. This was very early before, you know, around the time when it was being debated and after there had been a a special resolution limiting race is a consideration in UC admissions.

[00:25:48] So it was a great opportunity to kind of stand back as an economist and ask really the allocation decision. We always think of economics as studying how scarce resources get allocated among competing uses, right? One of the resource allocations decisions is if I'm going to allocate spaces from a public perspective, where is the greatest benefit yielded and, and that's the kind of approach I try to take to think about that issue, which of course is now going to be back again.

[00:26:14] Aaron - Narration: Dr. Conrad's interest in overlooked research questions isn't the only thing that reflects the spirit of the MacArthur Fellowship grants. She also has a love for teaching and seeing students develop into better versions of themselves, not unlike how the foundation is supporting fellows to help them flourish.

[00:26:32] Dr. Conrad: I discovered that I loved teaching. I've spent some time reflecting on what I love the most.

[00:26:37] First, I have to acknowledge that I like talking. I like being in front of people. I'm a bit of a performer, but I don't really have any acting talent or standup comedy talent. But you can be just sort of humorous and sort of good at acting and really succeed in a classroom if you have the energy and the passion for it. So that, that was one thing I realized.

[00:26:56] Aaron - Interview: Sort of humorous is I think how my students would describe me.

[00:27:00] Dr. Conrad: Sometimes, you know, painfully humorous, perhaps. So I love that. I loved the sense, I loved watching people expand their thinking.

[00:27:10] One of the things I always love to do is in my intro class, the beginning, I take a sort of little survey about people's attitudes about things, and certainly one of the ones that stands in mind was around the time that NAFTA was being debated. And many of the students who would consider themselves sort of progressive were very much, you know, anti-free trade. But it's a far more complex thing than a simple yes or no on free trade, particularly if you think about it from the perspectives of all the, you know, different people, the farmer, the customer, the consumer, the everybody that's involved.

[00:27:40] And so by the end of the semester, I really felt excited if I found that students had much more complex ideas about free trade then they started the semester. And that kind of watching that evolution of thought just really felt powerful to me.

[00:27:54] I also just love, it turns out, I get aof joy vicariously from other people's success. So that was the other thing that I really enjoy about the energy you get from having people who have completely new perspectives, who are seeing the world differently from you, who ask different questions, who get upset about things that you've forgotten to get upset about because you've just kind of suppressed them for so long. That's just amazing kind of experience. So I loved it. I loved it very much.

[00:28:22] Aaron - Narration: Dr. Conrad gained a great deal of operational expertise by serving in academic administrative roles. These are often thankless positions in universities, but necessary ones to make an institution run smoothly.

[00:28:37] Dr. Conrad: I moved into academic administration first because it was an opportunity to increase my pay while my son was going to college. That's what started it. We had a rotating associate dean kind of role where you could rotate in and you'd do it for a few years and then you would rotate out.

[00:28:53] But once I got in there though, I realized that this was a different level of doing some of the things I really enjoyed about teaching. Partly I also, I was in charge of the student faculty undergraduate research program, so there was that opportunity there to support students and to see them thrive.

[00:29:09] But also to support young, particularly the younger faculty, the opportunity to kind of help younger faculty find their way, get their research program started, work on their teaching, help to create the infrastructure to support them. That turned out to be really gratifying.

[00:29:24] So I started to think, Hmm, maybe this administration is not the dark side after all. And that's what led me into becoming eventually the dean at Scripps as an interim. And then coming back to pomona.

[00:29:35] Aaron - Narration: None of this work directly predicts a career move to leading the MacArthur Fellows program. How did she end up making that leap into philanthropy? After being invited to serve on the Secret Selection Committee for a few years, the time came to make a bigger jump.

[00:29:52] Dr. Conrad: I came to this moment where I realized that I loved my work in academia. I loved Pomona. I was Chief Academic Officer. That's a very stressful job if you want to do it well, and if you want to do it in a way that relies on consensus building and engaging people and not become sort of some kind of top down manager, which is not somebody I am.

[00:30:13] So I started thinking, I'm not going to want to do this forever. What should I think about next? And I could have gone back to the faculty, because I was a tenured member of the faculty. I thought, I'm not so sure that's good for the institution to have me sitting around like, you know, back there, even if I was quiet, when there's a new dean in place. So I wasn't so sure that was a good idea.

[00:30:36] I interviewed for some college presidencies and realized that that was taking me a little bit too far away from what I really loved. I loved the problem solving. I loved the sort of one-on-one work with faculty and with students, and so I sort of moved away from that idea as well. I started to think about foundations and partly because I knew someone who was a, had moved from being a chief academic officer to joining a foundation, and had talked with them the excitement that they enjoyed about it. So, so that was great.

[00:31:03] And I thought, I've got some time, you know, down the road I'll do this. And I, I got a phone call about this opportunity at MacArthur to run the MacArthur Fellows Program. Iconic program. It was sort of a dream job because I had, and I'm allowed to say this now, I had been a member of the secret selection committee past, so I knew about the job.

[00:31:26] The person who called me, had called me almost a year before about this position, and at that time I wasn't really even remotely thinking about leaving academia. She had asked for suggestions and I'd given her suggestions. So it's a year later, she calls again and I say, "Oh. Yeah. You know, Let me give you some more names. I, I'm, I'm a little surprised it's such a hard position to fill. It's kind of a shame because it would be a dream job for me, but I'm certain I'm not the kind of person you're looking for."

[00:31:55] And her response was, "Well, I don't know, maybe you are the kind of person that we're looking for, just as an aside."

[00:32:01] I have a history of not catching on when people are asking me if I'm interested in a job. The same thing happened when I left Barnard and went to Pomona. I missed that that's what they were asking for at least three calls before they had to just come out and say it. So I was missing this, this message that maybe I should apply.

[00:32:18] And I recognized that in some ways this particular opportunity, it captured everything I loved about what I was doing. And then more, plus, you weren't having to tell people "No," really, because you only call people and tell them "Yes." You don't, they don't know if you were looking at them and, and, and they weren't selected. So I thought, ah, you know, this job doesn't come open that often. I'm going to have to to do that. So I ended up flying out for an interview.

[00:32:41] It was an interview I did not think had gone well. And I was on the train here going out on the blue line out to O'Hare and I got a phone call from the search consultant saying, "Oh, they love you." So it was this kind of amazing moment where I really had to make a decision there that I had thought was hypothetical and off into the future, but it felt as if this was the moment to make a change.

[00:33:04] I think I had been at that, at largely liberal arts colleges I spent--my first job was at Duke, but after that, all small liberal arts colleges--for 30 years. I had seen just about every job, maybe even done almost every job there except do admissions.

[00:33:22] I felt very comfortable and highly knowledgeable, and maybe too knowledgeable. Maybe I was getting to a place where I thought I knew everything, and that's a dangerous place I think, for anyone to be if you want to kinda keep your brain operating and alive. So I decided to make that leap and we moved out to Chicago in the middle of a January.

[00:33:42] Aaron - Interview: Oh, that's rough timing.

[00:33:44] Dr. Conrad: From southern California. Just, just to make that clear. We packed up our car and it was somewhere in between when we got out and looked at each other, my husband and I, and said, we're moving to winter.

[00:33:57] Aaron - Narration: Let's take a break here for a word from our sponsor.

[00:34:01] ---

[00:34:01] Leading an ethical career can sometimes feel like navigating through a wilderness full of pitfalls and other dangers. Having good intentions isn't enough. What you need are ethical skills.

[00:34:14] The Business Ethics Field Guide leads you through the trickiest of ethical challenges. Based on extensive research involving hundreds of dilemmas faced at work, and written by authors with decades of experience, the book guides you through the 13 most common ethical dilemmas that people face. It gives you the expertise and tools you need to navigate them safely.

[00:34:36] But more than just keeping you safe, it also trains you to be an ethical leader that others can follow with trust and confidence. You can find The Business Ethics Field Guide at Amazon, Apple Books, Audible, and at meritleadership.com.

[00:34:56] ---

[00:34:56] Dr. Conrad has recently moved on to a new endeavor running the Lever for Change Foundation as its CEO. This is a new MacArthur initiative to innovate how foundations find and select grant recipients that are trying to solve the world's thorniest problems. This all began with a creative funding experiment called 100 and Change, where MacArthur awarded a hundred million dollars to a cause chosen by the applicants rather than by the foundation itself.

[00:35:26] Dr. Conrad: It's sort of interesting because I, I was still relatively new in the field of philanthropy and that naivete I think ended up with me working on and helping to create this new project. Because I didn't really, and this is where I go back to sometimes creativity comes because you are sort of bringing something from someplace else and don't realize the rules in your field or discipline might say, oh no, you can't do that.

[00:35:48] Our president at the time, Julia Stasch, wanted to, as an acknowledgement of the foundation's humility, find an area where we would invest a substantial amount of resources equivalent to what we might do in a big bet of one of our programs to solve a problem, to address a problem that was not something we had chosen.

[00:36:06] We were making decisions about where we were going to focus our attention. She wanted to open this up to voices outside the foundation. So she posed that as the problem. And we had a small group internally that created this 100 and Change, which was a large scale competition or challenge, open call. It was open to anyone in the world, any team in the world. They had to be non-profits or for, it had to be an organization. And basically we said, "Tell us what you would do at a hundred million."

[00:36:32] We didn't constrain the problem or the type of solution. We just invited submissions and they, they were ultimately going to be evaluated by an external panel. So we were taking that participatory approach from fellows and bringing that over. The big distinction is that this process was entirely transparent as compared to fellows. Partly because we felt that transparency would really help communicate openness, that this wasn't some rigged system, that everyone would be able to see what the rules were, see who the panelists were, who would evaluate.

[00:37:02] So that was the idea behind it. We did 100 and Change. We've done it twice now.

[00:37:08] Aaron - Narration: The first 100 and change award went to the Sesame Workshop and the International Rescue Committee, in a joint effort to help the early childhood development of refugee children in the wake of the Syrian crisis. The result is an Arabic version of Sesame Street with customized characters and content, fit to the lives and children who watch it. To date, over 5 million children in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq have watched the show. An impact study in Jordan revealed that 92% of caregivers felt that their children learned and used the emotional regulation tools taught by the show to help them manage toxic stress.

[00:37:50] Dr. Conrad: After the first 100 and Change, we started getting phone calls, and the phone calls were coming from other donor, who were saying, essentially, this whole idea of doing a big open call is something we don't feel like we can do humanely because we want to be able to respond to people who submit--and with our 100 and Change, everyone got some kind of feedback from us on their application-- we want to do that. It just seems really difficult, but we really want to know what's out there that we are not seeing will you share?

[00:38:20] So we were willing to share our data and we did that and we started sharing our data. And from sharing the data, we started seeing more money flowing to projects that had not been the grant recipient for MacArthur projects that were in our top 200 or more recently, our top 100.

[00:38:34] We started seeing funding flowing to them. So we saw this opportunity and that's how we ended up creating Lever for Change, is that ,what if we worked with funders who were particularly--and most of them are interested in specific topics, they're not as open as a hundred and change. So you work with a funder who say is interested in durable futures for refugees. Launch and run one of these open calls and we identify a group of top projects, again, advised by external panels of experts, people in the field, and then the donor picks what they want to fund, and then we get those projects in front of other donors. And what if we do that over and over again? What could happen?

[00:39:14] And so that's what Lever for Change became. And I'll just take a moment to brag because it's still kind of new. So we're excited. You know, two weeks ago we announced that we had helped to drive $1 billion through 11 challenges. And what for me is exciting is that over half of that funding is coming from this work we're doing what I call the secondary market. The work we're doing with the projects, getting them in front of other donors. We've vetted these projects, the teams have put together amazing ideas. They're ready. So donors who are looking to make some big grants, we've got opportunities. And so that's just really, you can see that's invigorating for me. I love it.

[00:39:50] Aaron - Interview: And what I love about this approach is this is much more outward focused and engaging. "What are the needs? And let's figure this out together," rather than saying, "We're going to sit quietly in these offices and then if you hear back from us." Hopefully it's with good news.

[00:40:04] Dr. Conrad: Yeah, it's important to open the door because there's so many organizations out there, so many people out there who aren't part of the insider network and may not get seen otherwise or heard. It's one of the eye opening things for me when I left academia and moved into philanthropy was to realize how many, how many times I probably wasted time on a grant application.

[00:40:24] Aaron - Interview: Yeah.

[00:40:25] Dr. Conrad: Not recognizing that it really wasn't going to be competitive because I didn't know the program officer didn't know that I was supposed to know the program officer.

[00:40:35] Aaron - Narration: Lever for Change is upending some decades old limiting patterns that are found in philanthropy today. It's far more open and collaborative than what you find in most foundations. It's also setting much higher standards for measuring the impact of the work that it funds. Most philanthropy still today doesn't actually go towards programs that have demonstrated impact for good. Lever for Change and MacArthur require that impact measurement be present in all of their work.

[00:41:06] Dr. Conrad: So we look at several different metrics of impact, first for ourselves and then also for the organizations. In every one of our challenges, we ask the organizations to define for us what it is they're going to define as impact and how they're going to track and measure it. And every one of the challenges the organizations have budgeted for having a third-party kind of evaluator work with them on doing that.

[00:41:28] We embrace and, and you know, some people might yank my economics credentials for doing this, but we embrace a variety of, of forms of data. But we are really looking for a kind of feedback loop, because you're trying to understand whether you're actually having the impact that you want to have and, and, and what are some of the things that are you doing that are generating that impact, particularly when you're trying to scale impact?

[00:41:51] Our impulse, and I used to do this when I was a a professor or when I was in an academic administrator, your impulse is to throw everything you can at the problem because the problem is so important and critical and you want to solve. But you also have to understand that in the end, scaling is frequently going to be under resource constraints. So you need to figure out what it is that you did that actually made the difference.

[00:42:13] And so I think when we frame thinking about that kind of activity in those ways, it helps organizations who want to do understand the importance of also kind of assessing as they're doing. So that's one of the things we try to do.

[00:42:27] I'll say we also though, have comfort with uncertainty and ambiguity. And I think that's the other part, because not all impact is going to necessarily show up right away. You may have to wait a long time to see the long term consequences of this early childhood intervention, right, in the Syrian refugee region.

[00:42:44] So you have to ask yourself, are you willing to rely on maybe some short term indicators? Are you willing to, in some sense, take a little bit of a leap of faith in order to potentially address something that is a critically important issue and problem. So there's a bit of also embracing the fact that we may not always be able to, to put a number or a specific thing on impact for quite some time.

[00:43:06] Aaron - Interview: So what are some of the lessons that you've been learning, that you think other large funders should know, with Lever For Change? You're trying new things and you're learning new lessons. What are some of the takeaways that you wish all big funders were keeping in mind?

[00:43:18] Dr. Conrad: So I think the first, it's a labor intensive process to have an open, open call. But I think creating some space periodically where you're doing that, where you're really conscious of the need to find out what you don't know, what you can't see would be number one.

[00:43:33] Number two is that we are modeling, and I think there's generally a move in the field transfer of agency from the funder to the organizations. In our challenges, we pose kind of a big question. What are you going to do to reduce racial inequity? We don't say, "Here we're looking for an organization that is doing workforce training for, for technology skills in order to reduce racial equity."

[00:44:01] We're leaving the organizations free to tell us how they would approach this particular issue or our problem. So we are transferring agency and, and organizations tell us this is like liberating. So I'd say transferring agency to the organizations in the field who are doing the work would be another big piece to this.

[00:44:21] information sharing, and this is becoming more of a thing in philanthropy, but I think there was a way in which each foundation kind guarded the information about, you know, what organizations had they considered for funding. And now there is a, a move of foundations collaborating with each other, sharing information. Because if you've got a great project and you just didn't have enough budget for that project, why not see if we can't get other funders involved, why not bring other people to the table?

[00:44:48] Aaron - Interview: In fact, the Bold Solutions Network is a good example of this.

[00:44:51] Dr. Conrad: That's our goal. So every time we run a challenge, we take the best ideas. We have them available in a publicly searchable database, the Bold Solutions Network. They're pre-vetted, they're ready to go. We ask them, what would you do with less amounts of money? So a funder can look and see. But even beyond that, we have a database of all the submissions from all of our challenges, which is well over 5,000 projects now.

[00:45:12] And if a funder comes to us and says, "I want to fund something big in Wichita Falls, Texas," we can go through our database and tell them, "Here are the things we've gotten from Wichita Falls, Texas." And we're willing to do that. We're really trying to make sure that these projects get seen and potentially get funded.

[00:45:30] Aaron - Narration: As you know, if you've heard my other episodes, I like to have my guests reflect on their lives, their work, and the lessons that they've learned. I asked Dr. Conrad to share about the people who have shaped her path, and how we can all get better at finding and developing new ideas.

[00:45:47] Aaron - Interview: Who are the other people that have shaped your passions and interests and career path? And we talked about your parents before, but you know, are there any other people that come to mind that sort of played a key role in where you've come to?

[00:45:58] Dr. Conrad: Oh, I have just been extraordinarily lucky. So one is my godmother. My godmother was a woman named Mabel Curtis in St. Louis. I was born in, in St. Louis, Missouri. Mabel Curtis had this extraordinary life. She spent some time working with the League of Nations, so she was somebody who just had this global perspective. She was also a lover of the arts. She started a community art center there. So she gave me this kind of view of a world and model of how you can exist in the world. That was important to me.

[00:46:30] My aunt, my father's sister was a math teacher, so you know, women in math was, you know, in our family genes. And, and she went over on a trip in the Holy Land, as she wrote op-eds in the newspaper constantly. These are all people who showed a kind of model for me of being an active participant in society, of being an active citizen.

[00:46:51] And there were many, I mean, I could, I can name many, many others in that kind of universe of the family. I have a great uncle, actually, I have several uncles who were Tuskegee airmen. But one of my great uncles who just recently passed away was Charles McGee, who was named a brigadier general just a few years ago and passed away at 102 last year. So that was somebody else who I just saw. Here's a path, here's someone who had this amazing set of ethics and patriotism and work hard kind of model.

[00:47:21] So I was surrounded by a lot of people like that. I was an only child and so I got dragged places a lot. I would get to be places maybe I, I maybe people would think wasn't appropriate, but I got to listen in on a lot of conversations and it was great.

[00:47:33] Aaron - Narration: As a kind of like a, a closing thought, how do we get better at learning how to spot good ideas?

[00:47:39] Dr. Conrad: Ah, wow. That's a great question. My thought is, you were asking it was, well then I should be rich, shouldn't I? I mean, I should, you should have been doing this in investing. I have been investing, but not in things that are going to yield a market return.

[00:47:55] So the part of it is a kind of listening. I try to listen hard. I think this is a skill I developed in the classroom because sometimes you'll ask a question and a student will answer it. And if it's not exactly what you were expecting, you might have a tendency to just say, okay, this student doesn't know what they're talking about. They're wrong. But I rarely find that an answer is completely wrong, that usually the student has spotted something and is thinking about the problem in a way that's different from the way you originally framed it.

[00:48:27] But maybe sometimes you want people who don't think like economist to look at an economics problem because they'll see some piece of it that you wouldn't have spotted and that could lead to new ideas.

[00:48:37] So I think it, it's the listening and also, expecting that the perspective that someone is bringing has value to it, and so that you're understanding what the kernel of the new idea is. What is the way that they're thinking about something that's different? I think that is a critical piece for me. I've worked with people where sometimes they'll raise an issue and everybody in the room is like, what is that person talking about? And I will be doing that too. But later on, about an hour later, I go "Ah. I see what they were trying to say."

[00:49:07] And just kind of being open to that fact that there's good ideas that can emerge from everywhere.

[00:49:13] Aaron - Narration: It almost sounds silly to say it because it's so simple, but the key to finding and developing good ideas is to be an excellent listener. If you reflect on what we've learned about Dr. Conrad and the MacArthur Foundation, you'll see that they've turned listening closely into a science. The intensive process for choosing MacArthur Fellows demonstrates this, as do the innovative approaches to the 100 and Change program and the Lever for Change Foundation.

[00:49:43] But finding good ideas also means listening to the people who might otherwise be ignored. We've built entire systems around making sure that some people are not heard, so that others can get all the attention. But when you're in the business of finding and developing good ideas like Dr. Conrad and MacArthur are, you can't just listen to the voices that everyone else is hearing. Like Dr. Suess' Horton the elephant, you have to have ears for the quiet, amazing voices who can change the way you see the world.

[00:50:18] Abundant thanks to Dr. Cecillia Conrad. I hope you got a sense of what an intelligent, warm, and interesting person she is. She has the energy and clarity of someone who's doing the job she was meant to do. I'm grateful that she took the time to share her life and her insights with us. You can learn more about her work using the links in her show notes, and by visiting leverforhange.org and macfound.org.

[00:50:43] In the next episode, we'll be listening to the delightful and fascinating Ashish Gadnis. He's a serial entrepreneur who came from poverty in India to someone who has built and sold multiple successful ventures. He's currently the CEO and co-founder of BanQu, a company dedicated to adding transparency to the products you buy every day by using blockchain technology in our supply chains. Imagine being able to know who grew the fruit that you're eating or what's actually happening to the bottle you put in the recycling bin. These are the kinds of problems BanQu is tackling, and it will be a fascinating episode.

[00:51:22] If you enjoy How to Help, please take a moment to give us a positive review in your podcast app. It helps us immensely in reaching more listeners. And if you have a favorite episode, will you share it on social media? It means a lot to us.

[00:51:36] If you want to stay up to date with the podcast and my other work, subscribe to the How to Help email newsletter, where I share ideas for how to have more meaning in your life and in your work. You can subscribe or read the archives how-to-help.com.

[00:51:52] This episode was written and recorded by me. Our production team for this season has included Ty Bingham yours truly, and Joseph Sandholtz, who also mixes our audio. Our music comes from the Pleasant Pictures Music Club. If you want to use their music in your projects, you can find a link and discount code in our show notes.

[00:52:11] Finally, as always, thank you so much for listening. I'm Aaron Miller, and this has been How to Help.

You Deserve Ethical Government • Walter Shaub, senior ethics fellow at POGO • s02e05

You Deserve Ethical Government • Walter Shaub, senior ethics fellow at POGO • s02e05

Summary

No matter what political ideology we have, we all agree that we deserve ethical government. But, trust in government in the US and around the world is at historic lows. Much of this falling trust comes from seeing political officials use their power to enrich themselves at the cost of the public good.

In this episode, Walter Shaub—a leading voice—helps us understand why ethics in government is worth fighting for. He also shares his fascinating experiences doing just that, along with issues at the forefront today. Shaub is one of my personal heroes, and I'm excited for you to hear why I admire him so much.

About Our Guest

Walter Shaub is a government ethics expert and one of the most important voices advocating for integrity and accountability in government. He leads the Government Ethics Initiative for the Project on Government Oversight.

Before joining POGO, Shaub served in key roles with other nonprofit watchdogs, government agencies and private sector employers. He served for four years as the Senate-confirmed Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE). While in that role, he was a member of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) and CIGIE’s Integrity Committee. Shaub served at OGE for a total of nearly 14 years as a staff attorney, a supervisory attorney, Deputy General Counsel and, finally, Director. Before that, he served in the General Counsel offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Outside government, he also worked for the law firm of Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux & Roth, P.C., and as a CNN contributor.

Shaub is the winner of multiple awards and recognitions. He's also written opinion pieces for a variety of publications, including the New York Review of Books, the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, the LA Times, and other publications. Shaub is licensed as an attorney in both the District of Columbia and Virginia. He earned his J.D. from American University’s Washington College of Law and his B.A. in history from James Madison University.

Useful Links

Follow Walter Shaub on Twitter: https://twitter.com/waltshaub

The Project on Government Oversight: https://www.pogo.org/

Shaub's podcast, The Continuous Action: https://www.pogo.org/series-collections/the-continuous-action

The US Office of Government Ethics: https://www.oge.gov/

Alarming trends in trust of government: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

A New York Times report on Congressional conflicts of interests: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/politics/congress-stock-trading-investigation.html

Pleasant Pictures Music

Join the Pleasant Pictures Music Club to get unlimited access to high-quality, royalty-free music for all of your projects. Use the discount code HOWTOHELP15 for 15% off your first year.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Aaron - Interview: Honestly, if, if somebody had asked me 10 years ago if I thought a government ethics expert would have nearly 700,000 followers, I think, on Twitter, I would've laughed at them.

[00:00:12] Walter Shaub: Yeah. I will say that I'm still surprised that I had that many because it did stop growing abruptly the first time I criticized Biden. Apparently some of the followers just really were in it for the Trump- bashing and not for objective ethics analysis. I think the ones who have stayed have embraced the idea, "Let's start caring about government ethics." And so it's kind of fun because I feel like there was a, a self-selecting purge for a couple years and a replacement of people who just truly care about this stuff.

And so now I don't get abused on Twitter every day because the ones who hate me are gone...

[00:00:53] Aaron - Narration: Hi, I'm Aaron Miller, and this is How to Help, a podcast about having a life and career with meaning, integrity, and impact. This is season two, episode five: You Deserve Ethical Government. This episode of How To Help is sponsored by Merit Leadership, home of The Business Ethics Field Guide.

Before we begin this episode, I'd like to ask for your help. Listeners like you are the most powerful people in helping a podcast to grow, and that happens in two ways. First, the most effective thing you can do is to share an episode with a friend or on social media. The second thing is to leave a podcast review with Apple Podcasts. The best part is both these steps cost you nothing but a few minutes of your time. So thank you for helping the podcast to grow.

Nestled in the beautiful rolling hills of Tuscany, Italy, you'll find the city of Siena. Throughout the Middle Ages, it was governed under the burden of factions and fraud. But then it enjoyed a period of remarkable peace and prosperity that lasted for 80 years, ending in 1355.

The heart of this prosperity was found in the medieval town hall called the Palazzo Publico. It still stands today and houses frescos, huge paintings on its walls that are around 700 years-old. These frescos are unique because they were commissioned by the government instead of the Church, and therefore are mostly secular instead of religious, like the vast majority of art at the time.

The most famous artwork there is a set of frescos by the artist Ambrogio Lorenzetti. Together, these paintings of his are called "The Allegory of Good and Bad Government." They're filled with symbolic imagery. On the east and north walls, you can see the panels called "The Effects of Good Government," where people are dancing, trading with each other, and traveling in safety and peace.

Sitting on a seat of judgment, you find the city ruler. Above him float symbols of wisdom and justice, and at his feet two children are playing. On the west wall you see a fresco called "The Effects of Bad Government," which ironically has been badly damaged with time.

It depicts a desolate, decaying city and a countryside beset with drought and war. Its ruler is the tyrant with horns on his head and fangs protruding from his grimacing mouth. Above him, figures representing avarice, pride, and vainglory. At his feet, a female figure of justice tied up and held captive.

These frescos adorn the council room where the nine elected officials of the city would carry out their business. It was a reminder to them, and a promise to the citizens of Siena, that a wise, just government ensures their prosperity and peace. These rulers were meant to demonstrate virtues like justice and humility, and to avoid the vices that surrounded the tyrant. Those vices are frenzy, divisiveness, war, cruelty, treason, and fraud.

When these images were painted by Lorenzetti, Siena was a flourishing and happy republic, one of the most prominent cities of Europe thanks to its commerce and art. But eventually, over the following 200 years, the city fell prey to factions and power struggles by the wealthy merchants and rulers. The nine were deposed. Siena lost in war to the rival government of Florence, never again to reach its former glory. It fell to every vice warned of by Lorenzetti.

[00:04:46] Walter Shaub: The hardest thing to do is persuade people in positions of authority that ethics isn't a nice overlay to have on top of what they do, but actually fundamental to what they do and to their success.

[00:04:58] Aaron - Narration: If my guest today was an artist, he would be Lorenzetti reincarnated. His name is Walter Shaub, and he's the Senior Ethics Fellow with the Project on Government Oversight and former Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Federal agency charged with ensuring ethical decision making throughout the Executive branch.

In this role, he was the highest ranking ethics officer in the entire Federal government. He also runs the podcast on democracy and government ethics called The Continuous Action.

Shaub is a personal hero of mine. But I want to warn you about this episode as we begin. If you are a staunchly political, Democrat or Republican, you're likely to get uncomfortable as you listen. Shaub is going to call out, by name, a wide range of prominent politicians for their ethical lapses. And he also offers praise where deserved. Just know that he's an equal opportunity critic, who is focused on what it takes to have a government we can trust.

[00:06:00] Aaron - Interview: I think one of the things I've admired most about you as I follow you is that partisanship really doesn't define what you do, even as others try to paint you as partisan.

[00:06:10] Walter Shaub: Right. They've done it a little less now that I've been sort of critical of the Biden administration, now all of a sudden I seem to be Fox News's BFF. But it's never been driven for partisanship for me. You know, I, I worked in the Office of Government Ethics, and worked closely with the White House in both the Bush and Obama administrations. And I was ultimately a political appointee under Obama, but I had equally good working relationships with both the Bush and Obama White House because I felt the goal that I have, letting the people choose the policy through through elections, is only achieved if there isn't corruption, if people aren't self-serving. And so focusing on these sort of support functions and process functions to make sure that the government isn't tainted by conflicts of interest or misuse of position, I always figured no matter who's in power that's going. To benefit America, and so that's what I cared about and it's what I still care about now that I'm out of government.

[00:07:16] Aaron - Narration: Shaub left government in a way that was unprecedented. He's the only Director of Government Ethics to ever resign since the role was created by Congress, and he did it for honorable reasons. This is a story to come later, though. These days, he works for the project on government oversight, or POGO for short. POGO is one of the most important public service organizations you've maybe never heard of.

[00:07:43] Walter Shaub: So I'm with the Project on Government Oversight right now, and it's an organization I just absolutely adore.

When I was in government, you know, we'd get letters occasionally from good government groups expressing concerns about one thing or another, and I'd often forward the letter on to an inspector general at an agency to see if they wanted to investigate something or pass it on to agency officials. But I really didn't have a lot of power to do anything.

But if I got a call from the Project on Government Oversight, it was all hands on deck. We would want to meet with them, we would want to solve the concern quickly because they made us nervous. I decided when I left government, I wanted to go to the place that made people nervous.

[00:08:24] Aaron - Interview: Yeah.

[00:08:24] Walter Shaub: Because they were serious about their work and, and still are, and are not partisan. They're focused on issues rather than parties. And those issues range from government ethics to government spending, which are related in the sense of accountability. For instance, the government not hiring contractors with histories of fraud or corruption. So all of this still points in the direction of aligning the government's functions with whatever policies the government has decided to approve after the people have chosen their leaders.

There's also a division that focuses on Constitutional rights and their work can be wide ranging from focusing on Death in Custody Reporting Act, where the government's not doing a good job, tracking who's getting killed in custody, to the detention of children detained at at the border and mistreated. The organization doesn't focus on immigration policy, but they do focus on the violation of basic rights. And so it's a fairly wide ranging focus, but it all points toward the government serving the people and tries to stay mostly neutral on policies because that's for the people that decide in elections.

[00:09:42] Aaron - Narration: Both with OGE and at Pogo, Shaub's work has included the efforts of Inspectors General. Here's a bit on what they do, and how they operate.

[00:09:52] Walter Shaub: An inspector general is in the large departments a statutorily created position, in the small agencies they've just created it on their own. And these individuals are supposed to be outside the management chain of command, and they conduct independent investigations and audits.

So they really are the eyes and ears of the people inside the agency looking for fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, to make sure the government is effectively using its energies in a way that's aligned with the people's interests and all pointing in that same direction. That work has, just goes straight to the heart of everything I care about.

[00:10:34] Aaron - Interview: How was it that you ended up choosing a career in government ethics? Because that's not an area that you sort of like, you know, you don't go to the career counselor and the career counselor says, "Oh, you're destined for government ethics." So how did you find your way into this as a profession?

[00:10:48] Walter Shaub: This is a topic that came up from time to time at the Office of Government Ethics, where I worked in government more often than you'd think. Because we'd look around at our fellow staff and some of us were sort of lovable oddballs, and we were all odd in our own individual ways, and we wondered what did we have in common? How did we all get there?

I think to a person, with maybe one exception, none of us went into our adult years thinking we were going to get into government ethics or any kind of ethics. We all had in common a love of public service and a desire to go serve the country. And so we went into government, and then you make a series of choices as different assignments come up. I always aimed for a wider variety to sort of sample everything, and I just viewed it as putting another tool in the tool belt.

And I think to a person, all of these individuals working there had made a series of career choices and a series of volunteering for assignments that led them to wind up applying to either work in an agency's ethics office or at the Office of Government Ethics, which is sort of the centralized office for, for the Executive branch's ethics program. So it's interesting because it's a self-selecting group that tends to veer toward that over time. And the only exception I ever met was one of the employees there who had been a philosophy major, who just had it in his heart that that's what he wanted to go do, but he was the unique exception to the role.

[00:12:21] Aaron - Interview: So what is it about this work that's so compelling for you and so fulfilling?

[00:12:25] Walter Shaub: You know, I truly felt that it went to the heart of the government's mission. You know, I've worked in a variety of different settings in the government, helping veterans, helping the Food and Drug Administration, helping Health and Human Services, and ultimately the Office of Government Ethics. And I, for a while was in the private sector representing Federal employees, especially law enforcement agents and managers.

In every case, again, there's a common theme of individuals who are driven by a love of public service, but for that public service to be effective, it has to be aligned. It has to all be pointing towards the public's interest.

[00:13:11] Aaron - Narration: One of the recurring themes in this episode will be public cynicism about government. You might have been listening to Shaub just now and thought that he sounded naive. If you believe that every government employee is just a partisan hack, you should know, that just doesn't reflect reality.

[00:13:29] Walter Shaub: You know, the government is an amazingly nonpartisan place to work, contrary to, I think, what, what some big voices in the country would sell. I think that by and large, I have never been a place where people were so unwilling to talk about politics. And every time I ventured into the private sector or the nonprofit sector, it was a culture shock because in the government when new people come in and they aren't steeped in the culture and they start talking about politics, somebody more senior pulls them aside and tells them, We just don't do that here. And, and that's true in just about every single Federal government agency.

[00:14:12] Aaron - Narration: A healthy government requires more than just a civil service that avoids partisanship. Government also carries immense power, and as Lord Acton famously, "Power tends to corrupt an absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is where ethics in government is so essential. We need a system of assurances that serve as a check on those who wield government power.

[00:14:38] Walter Shaub: But it's also true that aside from operating in a nonpartisan fashion, you also have to operate in a selfless fashion. And if there are people there with conflicts of interest, they have financial investments that will be benefited or harmed by the work that they're doing, then even if they're the best person in the world who would never let that influence their decision making, the public has no ability to have confidence that those financial interests are not tainting their work. And I think for the public, there's a right not only to have honest representatives and government serving your interest, but also to have them show you that they're putting your interests first.

And I think those dual responsibilities can only be served by a strong ethics program that's transparent and strict. They'll often say, "Well, I would never be corrupted by a fancy cocktail party. There isn't a glass of champagne and a and a little shrimp on a stick that's going to corrupt me."

Well, the problem is it's an appearance rule more than anything, because the public needs to have confidence that you are not out there being influenced by those little gifts. And I think what these individuals often miss is that a lot of these gifts, the gift itself isn't even the threat. It's that it's designed in a way where you're spending time with the gift giver and so you're invited to some lobbying firm's party and you spend four hours there. You can be sure somebody has been specifically assigned to bend your ear the whole time you're there.

And of course that's at the most innocent extreme. At the far end of the extreme, you have the Navy brass, top Navy admirals and officials were being bribed by a guy named Leonard Francis, who the admirals dubbed Fat Leonard because he was a big guy who was bribing them with prostitutes, with drugs, with parties, and with cash. And he made tens of millions of dollars off of corrupt contracts that they steered his way. By the way, they unfortunately all got slaps on the wrist.

And so that's why I, I was drawn to this because I love the idea of making sure that those services the government's supposed to be providing are pointed in your direction as the public. And we could disagree on politics and different administrations are going to have different priorities or different answers. One may favor the environment and the other may favor trade overseas or something. And so there are shifts there, but we'd like to make sure that those policy choices are the only thing that varies.

[00:17:23] Aaron - Interview: It definitely feels like public trust in government is at an all time low. And so what, what happens if we lose this? I mean, what happens if we lose that trust in government And what are the things that an average citizen can do to restore it?

[00:17:36] Walter Shaub: So I, I think that both of those questions get at the same issue. I think that goes straight to the heart of why Congress needs to ban its members from trading stocks. All of these kinds of things erode public trust in government.

Now, in reality, we're so polarized that it's going to be hard to ever get fully restored to levels that we were at before because the two sides are always going to be suspicious of things the other side does. And and so that's always going to influence people's trust of government. And so there will always be a certain percentage that's dissatisfied with it and maybe that's a good thing in a democracy, because you never want the people in charge to be too comfortable. But we are at such abyssal lows that something has to be done.

[00:18:28] Aaron - Narration: I want to dwell on this point that Shaub is making here. The tangled mess of how we see government has blinded many of us from seeing and understanding the ethical failings of government officials.

We'll always be divided over politics for issues like immigration or abortion, but there's no reason that any of us should want officials who improperly enrich themselves or abuse power for personal gain.

If we allow the champions of our policies to be corrupt as a reward for their loyalty, if we ignore their ethical failings, we erode the very foundations of our democracy. Our cynicism makes us into our own worst enemy.

[00:19:12] Walter Shaub: And you know, we're operating in a larger context, I think, where democracy is in jeopardy, it may be so overwhelming that there isn't much you can do to restore confidence in government until you feel safe that democracy is not going to go by the way you side.

But you can't ignore those other things because I they add fuel to it. I think people's despair over not being able to have confidence in government either makes them more vulnerable to questioning the usefulness of democracy or makes them wonder if it's worth fighting to defend it, even if they are on the side of believing in democracy.

And I think objectively some of these things are just wrong. And so it can't be bad for public morale to address things that are just wrong.

[00:20:07] Aaron - Narration: One of the issues we're going to discuss quite a bit is Congressional stock trading. As it stands now, members of Congress are allowed to buy and sell shares of individual companies, all while having unique information and power that might affect the value of those shares. Basically, members of Congress can and do get away with insider trading.

This year there was a unique surge of effort to stop this practice, but it was derailed. You see, this is an issue that has both parties divided internally. Some Democrats and Republicans want to ban Congressional stock trades, while others want to protect it.

But the public is overwhelmingly in favor of a ban. The problem is that the party leaders in Congress are the ones who oppose this ban and they're getting their way.

[00:20:55] Walter Shaub: I want to try to avoid painting either side into a corner, but sometimes these days, I feel some of the biggest opponents of reigning in Congressional stock trading were people who are very comfortable complaining about Donald Trump's conflicts of interest.

I don't think you'll find anybody in this country who was more concerned about Donald Trump's conflicts of interest than I was. I stood up and gave a speech on January 11th, 2017, the day he announced that he wasn't going to be divesting and had all those phony files full of what were probably blank pieces of paper and talking about his fake blind trust, and I criticized it and urged him to divest.

And I assumed that I was signing the death warrant for my career. I figured I'd be fired on January 20th at 12:01 and I figured that I'd be unemployable for a while. I still had student loans, didn't have much in the way of savings. But, it was a risk worth taking because having a President with conflicts of interests would kill the government ethics program, or at least put it into suspended animation for four years.

So I think that context for what I'm going to say next is important to understand how I actually put it on the line to oppose that guy. But it is the same thing when members of Congress have numerous stocks.

And let's be clear that their spouse's interests are identical to theirs. The conflict of interest law that applies to 2.1 million Federal civilian employees treats their own interests the same as their spouses'. Because, first of all, even in a court proceeding marital communications are privileged and you could never get at that. Second of all, we just have no way of knowing anyways what anybody says to their spouse.

And it's not just one side. You've got Tommy Tuberville, the Republican in the Senate, who is up there as one of the biggest stock traders in Congress.

And so that has to have an effect on public confidence. The New York Times and several other publications have run lists of conflicts of interest by showing what members held and what they voted on.

And I found a video of one senator complaining to the Secretary defense about him reducing the number of aircraft in our arsenal, while she held Lockheed Martin's stock. And of course Lockheed Martin makes many of the planes that we fly, and so reducing the arsenal could lower the value of her stock. And she didn't break any laws, but the public had no way of knowing that she had stock in Lockheed Martin while she's pressing the Defense Secretary about a budget request that would cut the number of aircraft in our arsenal.

There are several members who are fighting for a congressional stock band. You have people across the political spectrum too. You have people does a far right as Matt Gaetz and as far left as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and you have people in the center like Abigail Spanberger, and these people are supporting the Congressional stock ban.

And I'd say the leaders of that effort are, are probably Spanberger, Jayapal, Warren, and Ossoff, two in the Senate two in the House. And Warren and Spanberger have numerous Republican co-sponsors for the bills they've introduced.

And so I think there are people who care about this stuff in government and it's just that in Congress it takes a mass, overwhelming majority. You gotta have 60 people in the Senate to get anything done. And if you have a Leader who likes stock trading, she's going to be an obstacle in the House.

[00:24:46] Aaron - Narration: To make Lord Acton's point, listen to this crazy story about the husband of a presidential nominee for a prominent political appointment. One of Shaub's former roles was to help nominees and their spouses comply with ethics requirements prior to their service.

[00:25:01] Walter Shaub: And I had one ridiculous spouse of a presidential nominee one year. This, this cracked us up.

You know, when I was in the government, I helped presidential nominees eliminate their conflicts of interest. We'd review their financial disclosure reports and have them sign ethics agreements. And one of them had all these investments that they had to get rid of. And they were like, "Well, what am I going to do with that?"

And I, and we were talking to the spouse and we said, "Look, you could put them in mutual funds." And those are exempt from the conflict of interest law. They're diversified, so they don't create a conflict of interest.

And he said back to me, in this nasally voice, "Mutual funds are for suckers in the middle class."

And we had to hit mute on the speaker phone because we all almost fell out of our chairs laughing. It was like a cartoon villain talking to us.

So we're not telling them they have to take cash and put it under a mattress and, and have somebody guard it with a shotgun so that their life savings don't get robbed while they're at work. We're talking about moving them out of individual stocks into mutual funds, which is what, you know, most people in the country who invest do anyways.

And banning members of Congress is the low-hanging fruit. Somebody said to me the other day that this is just the least of our problems. And I said, "Well, what you're saying to me is that the people we sent to Washington can't even solve the least of our problems, because this one's a no brainer and it's easy."

[00:26:25] Aaron - Narration: Again, and I need to stress this, ethical government is and should be a bipartisan issue. In fact, it should be the most basic requirement we have for the people we elect and appoint at all levels. If you think your side is doing everything right, then you are not paying attention. The answer is not to just elect the other party. We have to elect the ethical people within those parties.

[00:26:51] Walter Shaub: While I think, and here I'll filibuster a little bit, while I think that the Trump administration was a calamitous ethics failure, I think the Biden administration came in with the low standards of being better than Trump. And that is a really sad state of affairs because they don't feel like we're even back to the level that we were prior to the election.

I've often said, I think Biden's view of ethics is very Clintonian in its outlook, in that you bring in the lawyers and you find out exactly where the line is, and then you bring out an electron microscope and you get as close to the finest point of the line that you can. And that's where you go, and you hope you don't fall over a little bit.

You put a milk lobbyist in charge of the USDA . You have the staff of SKDK, the influence pedaling firm run by Anita Hill, rotating through the White House on a high-speed spin cycle through that rotating door. You're giving waivers to government officials for massive percentages of their interests. And hiring shadow lobbyists. We have a shadow lobbyist running the State Department.

And so I feel like there's plenty of reason for people to be frustrated. I think it's understandable and I think we can do way better. But it's just disappointing. So I don't mean to draw false equivalencies. There's no comparison between the current administration, or really any administration, and the corrupt Trump administration, but I still think we deserve a lot better than we're getting right now. And I think that's why people feel disheartened.

[00:28:35] Aaron - Narration: Before you lose hope, you should know that Shaub, who's seen it all, has not lost hope. Part of the reason is that the great majority of people working in government are acting ethically every day. There's a bulwark of good people in civil service who stand in the way of those who would shred ethical standards.

[00:28:57] Walter Shaub: If we put them on a scale and put all of the people who are concerning me on one side and all the others who are not concerning me on the other, I think the scale would weigh heavily in favor of those who are not a concern.

I also think the irony of Trump referring to the "Deep State" as he put it to refer to the civil service, I actually think we do have two levels of ethics in government. I think the career civil servants are subject to incredibly high standards and have an incredibly strong culture of ethics and patriotism.

You know, you don't have to pay a bribe when you go to get your passport like you do in some countries. You don't have to worry that your veterans benefits are going to be delayed because the person sitting across from you at that table knows how you voted and doesn't approve of that. And you don't have to worry that your airline is going to circle the airport for three hours because the White House has told air traffic controllers to slow down the airline run by the guy who criticized the President.

These are things that don't happen because the career civil service is just focused on serving you. And I, I just love that population so much and I love the culture. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule in any workforce of 2.1 million employees, but I don't think you'll find as a whole a more patriotic or dedicated workforce anywhere.

You know, even during the Trump administration, there were still good people, even at political levels. When I left government, he wound up nominating and the Senate confirmed a director of the Office of Government Ethics named Emery Rounds, who I think the world of, and he's a Trump appointee. But I sincerely hope the current administration nominates him for another five year term when his time is up, because he's doing a terrific job with the limited tools that he has.

I think people have to remember that. I guess for as long as we don't have tanks driving down the street, there's a lot that's still going right.

[00:31:00] Aaron - Narration: And now for a word from our sponsor.

Leading an ethical career can sometimes feel like navigating through a wilderness full of pitfalls and other dangers. Having good intentions isn't enough. What you need are ethical skills.

The Business Ethics Field Guide leads you through the trickiest of ethical challenges based on extensive research involving hundreds of dilemmas faced at work and written by authors with decades of experience.

The book guides you through the 13 most common ethical dilemmas that people face. It gives you the expertise and tools you need to navigate them safely. But more than just keeping you safe, it also trains you to be an ethical leader that others can follow with trust and confidence. You can find The Business Ethics Field Guide at Amazon, Apple Books, Audible and at MeritLeadership.com.

So with a strong culture of ethics in the civil service, the problem is at the political level with elected officials and political appointees. The biggest issue here is that they're in charge of our government and only voters are in charge of them.

In fact, this is by design through our Constitution. If we were to install ethical enforcers over our politicians, those people would wield an influence that might backfire against the very purpose of having them. Instead, we voters are meant to be the ethical enforcers. It's up to us to boot out the dishonest and self-serving politicians who cross the line.

And sadly, we don't do that enough. As a result, Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court police themselves, and they often do it poorly. The US Supreme Court doesn't even have a code of ethics for the nine justices.

Self-policing does not work well, and over recent years it has been getting worse, because voters are more concerned about their side winning than they are about electing good people. And so Congress and the Presidency get away with ineffective measures that only give the appearance of ethical standards. Consider the STOCK Act, which was passed 10 years ago and requires members of Congress to report the shares that they buy and sell.

[00:33:20] Aaron - Interview: The STOCK Act is a good example of this. I mean, this has been in the law now for over a decade, and it is annually violated by members of Congress with no consequence. But the problem, but there, there's an interesting even Constitutional question here. How do you establish oversight at the highest levels at all three, in all three branches from Congress to the Executive, to the US Supreme Court? How do you establish ethics oversight?

[00:33:46] Walter Shaub: So that's a conundrum that really came into clear focus during the four years of the Trump administration. What do you do if the person at the top doesn't want to do anything about this? And I think the problem predates him by far.

I, it's fair to say as probably in many other areas of life, it's much harder to hold powerful people accountable than powerless people. And in the executive branch every year the Office of Government Ethics publishes a prosecution survey full of data that they get from the Department of Justice of people who have been prosecuted or sued for civil monetary penalties for violating government ethics laws. And with one exception this year, I think it's been about 15 years since any political appointee made the list. I'm not sure. I guess David Fabian at GSA was a political appointee, but it is extremely rare that they pursue a political appointee. It's just a $200 fine and they can't even bring themselves to impose that fine.

I mean, they passed a law that gave them... first of all, they passed a law that exempted themselves from the conflict of interest law. Then they passed a law that requires disclosure, but imposes a super light penalty, like a parking ticket for not filing a timely periodic transaction report to show that you just bought some stock. And then they can't even bring themselves to assess that late fee. So yes, it's, it's absolutely disheartening and unfortunately the system kind of breaks down at the top.

The laws are extremely easy to enforce at the career level because often the Department of Justice will actually decline prosecuting someone because it was clearly an offense, but they didn't profit from it, so just fire the person. But getting fired from a Federal job and losing your chance to earn a pension and losing your health insurance and losing your salary, and maybe you live in a region where the Federal government's the only employer, or maybe you live in a city, but it's a real bad mark on your resume that you just got fired from this Federal agency. So you're going to have trouble finding any employment. That's a pretty serious penalty, and the threat of that consequence keeps people in line, but there's no similar threat at the political level.

And so I do think we need more enforcement. And I have a counterintuitive sense that the way to get more enforcement is to stop grandstanding with speeches about how we should have more criminal penalties and instead have really severe civil penalties. Because I think DOJ would be more likely to seek civil penalties than it is to seek criminal penalties.

And so for instance, imagine if you failed to disclose that you bought a stock. Okay, Now you forfeit it. What if that stock was like $900,000 worth of stock? You're going to have a pretty significant incentive to disclose it. And in fact, your incentive to disclose it will be proportional to the threat it poses to the integrity of your services, because the bigger the asset, the more you stand to lose if you had to forfeit it for not disclosing it.

[00:37:12] Aaron - Narration: For much of his career job was a non-political civil servant. That all changed when he was nominated by President Obama to lead the Office of Government Ethics. This put Shaub through the highly fraught confirmation process in the Senate. And even though he had helped many nominees navigate these choppy waters, it was still an unpleasant ride for him.

[00:37:32] Walter Shaub: So my job in the Office of Government Ethics, prior to being nominated for a position, had been working with Presidential nominees for Senate-confirmed positions without ever knowing I was going to become one.

And I had a front seat to what a miserable process that was, and they all hated it, and they all complained, and the paperwork is extensive. You know, they had to fill out a financial disclosure, which takes a lot of time because the rules are so complex. And unlike the security clearance form where you disclose it and then they try to prove something and it's a lie. We assumed that you were going to get your disclosure wrong, so there was a whole process built around working with you to flesh it out.

But then there was also the Senate questionnaire and you know, the, each committee has its own set of questions. There was an effort about 12, 10 years ago to try to get them all to adopt the same set of questions and they, they reacted as though you were, you were trying to steal their power away from them. And then if you were in any way controversial, well, they may throw in a hundred other questions that have to be massaged and answered carefully.

Then there's the background check, which, in the case of a confirmed position, necessitates the FBI coming out to your house and interviewing you, which by the way is just scary on its face. I mean, even if you've done nothing wrong, it's, it's very intimidating to have an FBI agent there asking you all kinds of questions.

In some cases, again, for controversial nominees or positions, there's member-level meetings with the Senator. And then there's a hearing, which can either be a cake walk or it can be brutal. Uh, and then there are follow up questions for the record. And what often happens is your hearing gets postponed and postponed and postponed, and then you get a vote, if you're lucky, uh, and then you can start in the job .

So these folks were always exhausted and frustrated and it was, it took some real skill dealing with them.

But even knowing all that and having seen all of that, I would say running through, it felt like going through a gauntlet and it was absolutely miserable. And I was a noncontroversial career level, you know, career government official candidate as opposed to somebody with a history of, you know, showing up on cable news and, and railing against some cause or another

So it's, it's not an easy ride. It's, it's not pleasant.

[00:40:00] Aaron - Narration: Shaub was approved by the Senate for a five year term, but he ended up not staying in his office for the full five years. That's because following the election of President Trump, the executive branch stopped complying with many of the ethics policies and practices that had been in place for decades.

The sharp disagreements between Shaub's office and the White House escalated to the point that Shaub's only option was to resign, the first and only time a Director of Government Ethics has ever done that. The full context of what happened here is so fascinating and important.

[00:40:36] Aaron - Interview: The other moment I wanted to discuss was when you decided to resign, which was an unprecedented decision as a director of OGE.

[00:40:47] Walter Shaub: Boy, that was unpleasant. And I will say it took like a couple years for the eye twitch to stop. At, at the peak I had a double eye twitch, one in each eye, and it just made me feel like I looked like a lunatic. I don't think others could see it, but I could certainly feel it. And the insomnia was brutal.

But you know, just to give you a little context, we worked with both the Clinton and Trump campaign before the election to prepare them because there's so much to know about the nominee process that I just described, and so much work we have to do with them and so much opportunity for it to go wrong.

And there's a group called the Partnership for Public Service that runs basically like a training academy for both sides. And actually Clinton and Trump people were sitting in a room together, playing nicely in the sandbox with experts from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations teaching them about how to stand up a government, because we all shared in common a belief that the country is very vulnerable during a transition. That's when an enemy could attack or a market could crash or a natural disaster could hit, and if you don't have leadership positions filled that could slow or hamper the response. And so it's really important, even if you disagree with a candidate, to get a lot of those positions, at least key ones, filled quickly so the nation isn't basically unarmed against disaster.

Unfortunately, and, and I worked well with both of them and liked actually the people on those transition teams, and I wished them both good luck on election day in a nonpartisan way, saying, "You know, however it comes out, I, I hope things go well for you personally, and I look forward to working with whichever one of you wins. And if I don't see the other again, I, you know, it's been nice working with you."

The next day I reached out to the Trump people to congratulate them and schedule our first meetings and they had to postpone it because there was some uncertainty. And then they disappeared, and they had all been fired.

After that they had no transition team and no one who had gone through the five months of training for how to do a successful transition. And they just were clueless and didn't know what they were doing and everything was just an absolute mess. And we could have a whole episode just talking about those 73 days between the election and the inauguration. Sufficed to say, it was a bumpy ride from the start.

And as I said, when I spoke out about Trump not getting rid of his conflicts of interest, I assumed that was the end for me. It wasn't, for a variety of reasons, including that the then head of the House oversight Committee came after me and botched his effort so badly that I suspected scared the White House, that there could be repercussions.

So anyways, it, it was difficult. And as we worked with their nominees, I would see members of the staff coming out in the hall just rubbing their foreheads, saying, "Why does everything have to be so hard?"

And ultimately there were these battles. And it really came to a head in May, when I suspected there were lots of secret ethics waivers in the White House, and so I decided to do a data call for all waivers of ethics waivers that had been issued in the past year, which would've been eight months of Obama-era waivers and four months of Trump waivers. So I thought that seemed fair, and in fact, we wound up digging in on a couple waivers that the Obama administration had failed to share with us. So we were even-handed in pursuing it.

But the Trump administration basically told us they were not going to release those, and so I wrote them a letter and it was quite hot. And I cc'ed Chuck Grassley and referenced a letter Chuck Grassley had sent about the importance of transparency and waivers when Obama was President. And that got him interested. And apparently I'm told by others that he went looking into it and that sort of forced the administration's hand.

And so they came around to release them and then when they finally released them, all the metadata on them and the lack of signatures on them suggested they were ginned up afterwards in order to do this release. Which leaves me wondering if the secret to the secret waivers is that there were no secret waivers, there were just violations that they then papered over with retroactive waivers, uh, which is not a thing that exists.

And all, at that point, things got really tense. And Trump, at one point during that was in Saudi Arabia with the famous incident with the glowing orb and the sword dance. And we got word that a call had been placed to him from the White House. I assumed it was probably asking for permission to fire me, and I thought, "Well, bring it on."

But they didn't, and I went into the summer. But what they did was cut off all communication. And the problem is I had to review their financial disclosure reports and sign off on them, and we weren't getting basic answers about their holdings, about their duties, and we just couldn't evaluate them.

And I thought, "I think this is checkmate, because if I refuse to certify any of them, I'm going to look partisan because surely some of them don't have conflicts of interest, maybe even most of them. But if I do certify them all, some of them probably have conflicts of interest and I'm just going to be window dressing for corruption."

So I had a choice between looking partisan or being a window dressing for corruption. And at the same time, I was starting to worry about the future for my staff and for the agency.

And so to make a long story a bit longer, I had asked myself pretty much every single day, because it was a brutal winter and spring, three questions: I asked, "Can I still perform the mission or, or can I still accomplish the mission? Can I accomplish it ethically and moral? And can I tell the truth?"

And I thought when the answer to any of those three questions is no, it's time to quit. And I still felt I could tell the truth. So that one I checked off. I still felt that I could do what I was doing ethically and morally. But I didn't feel I could accomplish the mission because I was stuck on how do you certify or not certify these reports?

And I decided that I could have more impact on the outside, speaking freely. There was so much I couldn't say. I wasn't, I was forbidden by law to interact directly with Congress on my own initiative, and so I quit and wound up finding a bigger platform after I left and probably became a bigger thorn in his side once I was out of government than when I was in government.

But it was the most painful decision I ever had to make because I had intended to spend my entire career in the government and loved what I was doing, but just felt I had no choice left but to blow it all up. And so I did.

And I will say, you know, it led to about four years of misery and a year of sort of recovery. And only now am I feeling really good. So you make a choice like that, you pay some consequences.

[00:47:57] Aaron - Narration: My friend and co-author, Bill O'Rourke, likes to say that everyone faces at least two quitting decisions in their life, where they have to decide if they can stay in their job and still maintain their integrity. I can't imagine having to live through a quitting decision, though, like the one that Shaub faced. This decision brought a tragic end to a decades long career in civil service, where Shaub was an ethics champion. And as you heard from him, Shaub faced all kinds of difficult challenges as a result.

But it didn't wipe away his successes from all those years, and I asked him to reflect on those.

[00:48:35] Walter Shaub: I think inside government, the thing that I'm most proud of looking back now is the four years that I spent as director of the Office of Government Ethics before Trump, because we really took sort of a sleepy agency and made it into a very efficient machine. And it would get kind of bureaucratic explaining it, but sufficed to say that we became more effective and faster at our review of financial disclosure reports and ethics, creation of ethics agreements. We got much more vigorous in conducting training for the 4,000 ethics officials in the government, and auditing the ethics programs of 135 or so Federal agencies, and that just felt really good.

It was an amazing staff, and watching them reach their potential as we streamlined and standardized things and got rid of what didn't matter and focused on what did I think, I'll probably always look back on that as the highlight of my accomplishments. On the outside, it's much harder because you don't have the power, you don't have the resources, and you don't have the law and the facts and the inside knowledge on your side.

But I'm incredibly proud of the work that POGO does and thinks that it's just truly highly effective, amazing organization. And so I think my pride now after being in government comes more from being part of the Project on Government Oversight than anything I've done individually.

[00:50:14] Aaron - Interview: What was the missed opportunity that you most regret?

[00:50:17] Walter Shaub: That's tough. I mean, I certainly have regrets, but in terms of missed opportunities, you know, I think one missed opportunity was finding a way to get the public interested in government ethics before Trump. We certainly tried and it feels a little funny to call it a missed opportunity, because the truth is, I don't know how I would've done it even now, like going back.

I, and so maybe somebody who's much better at marketing and much smarter at engaging the public will find a way to do that if our world ever calms down and people want to go back to sleep and not pay attention to government ethics. My recommendation would be something that my former chief of staff at OGE told me from day one, which is find a way to get the public to care about this, and I don't know that I succeeded.

I mean, it, they certainly started caring once it became a clash with Trump, but I felt like we were out on a street corner waving signs in the air saying "We exist." And I look at a place like the New York Conflict of Interest Board and their web, their, their Twitter account at least, is just hilarious and engaging and good-spirited. I just feel like that organization has figured out how to reach the public.

So I, I think maybe it's more a case of regret than lost opportunities. I regret that I wasn't good enough at figuring out how to engage the public and get them interested, but I can't fully call it a lost opportunity, because if I had the chance to do it again, I still don't know how I would do it.

[00:51:50] Aaron - Interview: I relate to that feeling, by the way, as an ethics professor. So...

[00:51:53] Walter Shaub: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:51:56] Aaron - Narration: As I mentioned at the start, Walter Shaub is one of my heroes. I have so much admiration for people who do the right thing in the face of daunting consequences. There's a reason that bravery features in all of our stories, these are the kinds of people we should honor and emulate.

But what makes Shaub especially inspiring is that he did all of this as a public servant. He exemplifies the kind of character, the care and self-sacrifice, that government service is all about.

[00:52:28] Aaron - Interview: So my last question, and I ask this on behalf of my students, you know, who are heading into careers of public service. You have a very unique perspective on public service, based on your experiences and your expertise. What advice do you have for the people that are aspiring to work as public servants?

[00:52:45] Walter Shaub: You know, I would encourage young people to go into government. I think it's an absolutely wonderful career. I think that the feeling of going to work, feeling like you're working for the good guys, or at least the common good, even if you don't always feel like the folks you report to are good guys, truly is a wonderful feeling.

It's, it's a level of fulfillment that I think makes up, double-fold, for the lower salary. And I truly view public service as serving your country the way I think some in the military view going into the military. Now, obviously it doesn't come with the same risk. So, so those are heroes. But nevertheless, it's, it's truly about serving your country and you can feel good about that every day.

And I think even in times when you have a leader who doesn't seem to respect the civil service and doesn't seem to view democracy as a bedrock common-ground that if we don't have, we don't even really have America, at least early in your career, you'll be far enough down that there will be layers between you and them, and the layers don't change. I mean, there are multiple layers of career Federal employee leadership before you reach the political level. And that's just going to stay that way because there are 2.1 million civilian Federal employees, and I'm not sure if that includes the Postal Service. So it might be closer to 3 million if you count them, and only 4,000 political appointees.

And so you'll be insulated in the, the earlier years of your career, and then later in your career you'll have more choices. So I wouldn't let that deter you.

But I do think sending good people into government right now is an investment in the defense of democracy. Because democracy can only survive if you have a government that respects democracy and cares about democracy, and ultimately by the time you reach a level of significant influence in the government, hopefully a lot of your peers have come with you and you'll be a formidable force to reckon with for anybody who wants to break the law or, or steer us away from democracy. If you are in there staying true to the law and the legal requirements and carrying out crucial functions to keep our society afloat, I think that there isn't a higher calling you could answer to for most of us.

[00:55:19] Aaron - Narration: In Lorenzetti's "Allegory of good and Bad Government," while the tyrant is surrounded by the six vices that I mentioned, the wise and just ruler is surrounded by figures representing six virtues. They are: Peace, Fortitude, Prudence, Magnaminity, Temperance, and Justice.

At the bottom of that fresco are written these words, "The holy virtue Justice, where she rules, induces to unity the many souls of citizens. And they gathered together for such a purpose make the common good their Lord. And he, in order to govern his state, chooses never to turn his eyes from the resplendent faces of the virtues who sit around him."

We deserve virtuous government. We deserve ethical government. But it's up to us to ensure that we have it. We common citizens have to use our voices and our votes to choose ethical leaders. And we have to exercise the self-restraint to turn away those who promises victory at the cost of virtue. In the end, we get the government, we choose, so to flourish, we need to choose well.

I'm incredibly grateful to Walter Shaub for accepting my invitation for this interview and offering his time, passion, and wisdom to help us all understand these things better. If you want to support his work, visit the Project on Government Oversight at pogo.org, where you can also find his podcast, The Continuous Action. Season two will be released in the coming months, and we've linked to all of these things in the show notes.

In the next episode, we'll have a chance to hear from Dr. Cecilia Conrad. She's a Stanford-trained economist, CEO of the Lever for Change Foundation and former managing director of the MacArthur Fellowship Grants. This is the grant program that's famous for selecting two dozen geniuses each year in a broad array of fields, from mathematics to music to medicine. Dr. Conrad will share her career path as an economist woman of color, as well as her unique expertise in spotting genius and in accelerating solutions with impact.

If you enjoy How to Help, please take a moment to give us a positive review in your podcast app. It really helps us to reach more listeners. And if you have a favorite episode, will you share it with a friend or on social media? It means a lot to us.

If you want to stay up to date with the podcast and my other work, subscribe to the How to Help email NNewsletter where I share ideas for how to have more meaning in your life and in your work. You can subscribe or read the archives at how-to-help.com.

This episode was written and recorded by me. Our production team for this episode included Ty Bingham, yours truly, and Joseph Sandholtz, who also mixes all of our audio. Our music comes from the Pleasant Pictures Music Club. If you want to use their music in your projects, you can find a link and a discount code in our show notes.

Finally, as always, thank you so much for listening. I'm Aaron Miller, and this has been How to Help.

NEWSLETTER

Sign up to get How to Help delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe to get newsletter posts and be notified with every new podcast episode!

Great! Please check your inbox and click the confirmation link.
Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.