To Lead Is Human – Episode #45
Leadership as a Craft (Arvind KC)
Arvind KC: People talk about, what are the external things I need to do to be a good leader? But I think that’s the wrong question. The right question is, what’s the internal transformation that you want to achieve in life? And when you pursue that journey of that internal transformation, you automatically become a better leader.
Sharon Richmond: I’m Sharon Richmond, and this is To Lead is Human. For more than 30 years, I’ve run a business called Leading Large. I help C level executives uplevel their impact, clarifying priorities, energizing their organizations, and building cultures of accountability and respect. In this podcast, we help you envision how to supercharge your leadership by introducing you to executives who lead with intention. These business leaders exemplify the principles of leading large. They know that as leaders, the positional power they get comes with an equal measure of personal responsibility.
These leaders not only deliver stellar value to their customers, clients, and stakeholders, they also prioritize building organizations that provide purpose, meaning, and a healthy work environment for their employees. We learn from the challenges and successes they’ve experienced on their human journey.
My guest on the show today is Arvind KC. He’s the chief people and systems officer of Roblox, a platform that allows people to create virtual immersive experiences to come together in play, work, learning, creation and connection. KC has been on his executive leadership journey for more than 25 years, mostly focused on leading internal product development teams. The first half of his career, he built supply chain systems in semiconductor companies. At Facebook, he went deep in understanding what enables exceptional performance in organizations and teams, and how technology can accelerate that.
Then, as CIO and head of people ops at Palantir, and most recently as the VP of engineering at Google, his teams built products that shape people, processes and culture. KC holds BS in chemical engineering from the Institute of Chemical Technology in Mumbai and an MBA from Santa Clara University in California. As you listen today, notice KC’s perspective on minimizing the negative impact of the natural power differentials in your organization. And you may even want to take notes when we get to talking about how leadership will need to change as we more fully embrace an AI augmented world.
Welcome, KC. I’m so excited to have you on the show.
Arvind: Thank you for having me, Sharon. I’m really excited to be here with you.
Sharon: Thank you. So I did give a quick overview of your leadership journey to our listeners, but maybe we start out by building out on this a little bit more and maybe you can think about how would you describe your leadership trajectory from beginning to today?
Arvind: I started off as an engineer, building supply chain solutions. And over time, I just started inheriting teams because I just was better at that particular craft of building specific supply chain products than others who are newer to the profession. And it took me a while to realize that I was given the job of leading people, not because I was good at leading people, I was given the job because I was technical and I hence made quite a few of the mistakes. And soon neither lost my technical edge and wasn’t a good leader either.
And that’s when I realized that the path to leadership is a very deliberate path, just like the path to learning any technology is. And you have to think of it as a craft that you learn constantly. Any craft you learn by surrounding yourselves with people who are good at that craft, by reading a lot and by getting feedback. And so that’s been my journey as my teams have, you know, started off from a handful to close to a thousand. It’s always been a constant question of asking, what is my job right now? What should I pay attention to? And each time I ask that question with a lot of curiosity, then I’m able to get a bunch of insights on what I need to focus on.
Sharon: That’s great. So if you think about the arc, it’s both an ascending arc and also a deepening arc, a developmental arc. So maybe we can walk through some of the specifics. And let’s pick whichever place you’d like to start for where you feel like you really started flexing leadership. And let’s just kind of go stage by stage and think, well, what was important there? What did you learn at this job?
Arvind: Yeah, so go way back and start with the Xilinx, which was the first place where I had people in four different countries reporting to my organization. And it took me a while to realize that the time that you’ve spent face to face is so important. Those were the age when you didn’t have Zoom and the video conferences. So most of our conversations used to happen using phone calls and as well as emails. And the gulf that was created because you could not just hang out was huge.
And it was a huge unlock for me to realize that, you know, this face-to-face time is so important. So that was one key thing that I learned there. And it is fascinating how we kind of, we have to relearn that now when a lot of us are on Zooms all day and we don’t realize that, you know, just getting lunch together, dinner together, coffee, going for a hike makes a huge difference in the human connection and ultimately what is most important in any relationship. And the leadership relationship is the human connection. So that was one of my first lessons.
The next place that I think I had a significant evolution of my leadership understanding was at Facebook. I think few things that were important as part of that learning, first is it was before Facebook was a public company. But the growth that Facebook was going through was just fascinating. And I realized the importance of being able to hire before the demand hits you, because I felt that for the first couple of years at Facebook, I was always catching up. Maybe for the entire time in Facebook, I was catching up. And the importance of prioritizing hiring and getting the right hires was a key lesson for me.
So as a leader, I usually like the question to ask yourself is, do you have the team for tomorrow right now? And if you don’t have the team for tomorrow, then you are going to be at a significant disadvantage tomorrow. So that was a critical lesson. And the second lesson that I learned at Facebook was how important culture is. And I define culture as what do people do when you don’t tell them what to do? That, to me, is the definition that has resonated the most.
And Facebook was very active in fostering a culture of speed, a culture of innovation, a culture of attention to outcomes. And it ranged from things like, we would make posters that we would put up by people’s walls. We would talk about it in terms of our values, and just seeing how much of a difference it can make to the team was just eye opening to me.
Sharon: I wonder if you could give an example of that last story. How did it affect people? What did you see them doing differently? Or how did you see people responding to that effort?
Arvind: Yeah. On the culture bit, one value that Facebook held very dearly was like, you know, feel fast, and it was just a way to say, move and try and don’t be stuck like a deer in front of headlights. And the way they would embrace that is in the weekly all hands, we would talk openly about failures. And the failures were talked not as a punishment, but really as like, wow, that’s cool. We tried this. We failed it. This is what we learned, right? So this failure is a conduit for learning was just a fun thing.
And I didn’t know then about this notion of psychological safety, but what I saw it create was this enormous psychological safety where people were willing to be bold and willing to take risks, right? And I think I realize even now that people artificially create boundaries for them that are self-imposed. And you frequently, as a leader, need break these boundaries and say, don’t be afraid. Try something more. And if it fails, we got a net.
Sharon: That’s great. And so, as you move forward from Facebook, what was their next chapter like?
Arvind: I loved my time at Facebook. I didn’t think that I would leave Facebook. I was fortunate to talk to some of the early people at Palantir, fascinating company, very different from Facebook. The thing that I loved about Palantir, maybe a couple of things. One is extremely mission oriented, and the people are so bought into the mission and the positive impact that Palantir had on the world that it was just a bunch of extremely hardworking people, primarily driven by mission and meaning. So that was my key lesson, is, like, how important meaning is to unlock greatness with people. Right? So that was one aspect of it.
The second thing in Palantir, which I found fascinating, which I see very few valley companies do, is you are not limited by a role or a level to try something very different. So you could be really young, and the company had a system where you would be given, like, outstanding opportunities. And it is just fascinating to see how people who are not sharpened by experience just be bold and try some very different things. So I thought, like, Palantir is the company where they truly cultivated an artist colony where people were completely respected for the strengths that they bring into the table and given, like, outstanding opportunities. And if they succeeded, you got more of that.
Sharon: And was it that Palantir where you first started taking accountability for the people ops?
Arvind: That’s right. So at Facebook, I shifted from supply chain to building products for people and collaboration. And then Palantir, I continued to be very opinionated about the people topics. And so I got people ops as a, I don’t know if it’s a reward or a punishment, but I think of it more as a reward. And I’m happy to share how my brain twisted when I went from a primary technology role to a combination role.
Sharon: Let’s do that. Tell us about it.
Arvind: If you think of a role of a technologist and role of people ops, they actually feel very different. But I think of leadership roles across different functions as different exercises that you do in a day. So you could be a runner and you’re running, and a good complement to that is go do some yoga to stretch it out and, like, not become very tight. And that’s kind of what I found between a technology and a people facing function.
Actually, you could technology, you bring the engineering rigor of doing things. And in a people function, you lead with empathy. You lead with, like, how can I add value to people? And when you put those two together, ultimately, what you’re trying to do is use technology but lead with empathy and a service mindset. And that combination, to me, is the golden quadrant to be in.
Sharon: So what’s a good example of how you brought that in to blend the empathy and the service mindset in practices?
Arvind: There were some practices that I used to do before that. I didn’t have a name, but it amplified the importance of it. So I’ll talk about two examples on either sides. So one is, when you’re building internal products, you have to ask yourself, how am I cultivating user empathy? Right? And the best way to cultivate user empathy is actually go do the job. So, for example, if you’re helping recruiters, or if you’re helping your salespeople and building tools for them, go and do the job.
Sharon: Is that what you used to, what you’ve described as tasting the soup?
Arvind: That’s right. So we believed a lot of that in Palantir is like, you need to be able to dive deep. Even at Facebook, there was a belief that the top most levels, you need to have a certain amount of reality check with being in the trenches and being in the details. So, yeah, that is a great example of tasting the soup is go do the job of the person who you’re trying to help by building a product for them. And, like, that builds empathy like no other technique. So that was one.
And then if I shifted to the people side, I think a lot of people on the HR and people side, in some sense, are uncomfortable dealing with engineering because they don’t speak the same language. And that language is the language of data and logic, right? So they’re actually very good with, like, empathy. But if you combine that with, like, data and reasoning, the effectiveness of the organization just compounds, right? So those are two examples where infusing a data driven mindset in the people, infusing more of tasting the soup, and user empathy with the technology led to good osmosis between these two.
Sharon: That’s great. And I imagine in your current role, it continues in that way.
Arvind: It does. And along the line, a key aspect of it was information security was part of my portfolio as well. And when you think about information security, again, that’s a critical function. And injecting that with engineering rigor as well as empathy tends to produce a function that will be very well received by the organization.
Sharon: So Facebook, you said, was very values driven, focusing on fail fast. I know you’ve also talked a little bit about your own struggles with perfectionism. And so how are you able to kind of balance the drive to have everything be really perfect with this idea of try it, fail fast, move on.
Arvind: Yeah, I still struggle with it, so I can say it’s a constant evolution. And I think the way I’ve tried to resolve it is the path of iterating and failing fast is the quickest way to perfection, right? So that’s how I’ve been able to converge the two concepts that they are not actually opposed, but they are merged in that if you want to get to a really good solution, you need to be able to fail fast and do things aggregately.
Sharon: So one of the things that a lot of the companies that I’ve worked with over the years struggle with is how to help people both have that reach and strive. We want to stretch goal, but also not to become overwhelmed and working to the point where you can’t think clearly anymore. And I just wonder, how do you reconcile this? In these early-stage environments, it’s such a tricky thing to balance.
Arvind: So what is the reason for having that stretch goal, right, is that you unlock a level of performance that you didn’t think you could do before. And to me, the high that you get from that is just phenomenal. That’s the reason you really do it, is you get a high of like, oh, wow, I didn’t know I can do that. This is awesome. Right? But then you have to be very clear on what are your non compromisables in pursuit of that. And for me, my non compromisables over years have been by my spiritual practice, my exercise, you know, my nutrition and sleep. So if those four are not compromised, then I don’t hit the burnout zone. So that’s kind of how I feel. Once you have those four things there, rest of the time just have fun.
Sharon: So that’s great. I know everyone is like, oh, yeah, it’s easier to do that at the executive level, which, by the way, I don’t think is true. But a lot of people think when you’re earlier in your career, you can’t set any kind of boundaries around your life like that because that’s not what’s expected. So how do you educate your younger employees to start out understanding these four things?
Arvind: There’s a principle I strongly believe in. If there is a thing you feel you cannot do today because of some reason, the chances of you doing it tomorrow is close to zero. And I strongly believe that even at early in my career is if I don’t take time out exercise at this stage, in my career, the chances that I’ll take time to exercise 20 years from now is zero. And so it’s a myth that something has to change for you to be able to do a thing that’s really important to you. And I don’t have a more euphemistic way of saying this, is you’re just pulling yourself and you have to get down to being real with yourself, and there’s no excuse for you to not prioritize what’s most important early in your career.
Sharon: So I guess the dilemma then, for a lot of early and mid-career folks, and I’m specifically thinking about the engineering organizations and the product development organizations, they feel such urgency to complete, to perfect, to hit a release, to move on, that sometimes I see that people just don’t take the time for themselves.
Arvind: Yeah. Yeah. So I’m reminded of a piece of data that I read many years back, which was studying the traits of people who are exemplars in their profession, ranging from musicians to sports to artists and a whole range of professions they studied. And what they found is, and these are people like Tiger woods and Mozart and a few others, right? In many cases, the amount of practice that you needed to do for truly being like, excellent was six to 8 hours of deliberate practice every day.
So I was like, kind of shocked because I thought that number should be much higher. And the key was, how deliberate are you with getting better at your craft? So it’s not the quantity of time that you’re spending, it is the quality of time in improving your craft. I think the best in the field needed only six to 8 hours to get really good at their craft. Why are you spending more time than that? And I would posit that the time that you’re spending more than that is actually unnecessary work that can be cut out. And ultimately getting very good at saying no to a whole range of things is the path to success.
Sharon: Which very much is around this sort of idea of essentialism, right? That we try to figure out the very few things that matter most to bring our progress forward. So another thing that’s coming up a lot with the companies I’ve been working with the last few years is how to think about goals and the purpose of goals in a company that’s growing fast and sometimes changing direction fast. So I know that there are a number of companies that use OKRs.
That’s for people who don’t know objectives and key results, which is one way to structure. There are other schools of thought, and I wonder, what have you found works best for helping people maintain that focus. And therefore, if they’re clear what is most critical, then they can decide where can they stop their workday to go do these other things.
Arvind: I think the answer really varies based on the size of the company you are in. If you’re a small company, my recommendation is don’t do OKR.
Sharon: Small, meaning what size?
Arvind: Anywhere where you can talk to all the people, like, have a reasonable conversation every week. Don’t do OKRs. It’s a bureaucratic process. Just hang out with people and just be clear on what’s most important. Just write to tell people what’s most important, what is as simple a way as you can, and just keep doing that regularly. As you get bigger, you don’t have a good mechanism for doing this at scale. And really, like, that’s the reason I feel OKRs and set of goal setting systems have been invented. And frankly, I don’t have a better version than OKRs for setting goals and being clear. But in a heartbeat, if there was a better approach, I would take it.
So for larger companies, the process is so onerous. Usually, at best, companies set OKRs at a quarterly level, which means, by definition, you’re not flexible enough to make rapid changes, right? And so I haven’t cracked the nutshell, and frankly, on how do you get to be really successful at scale. I’m hoping to crack that nut at Roblox. Currently, my lousy answer for that is how do you be very successful and fun at a large size is to don’t become a large size. Be small. Not a good answer.
Sharon: You know, it maybe isn’t a good answer, but I remember reading some research, actually a number of studies, that said once a company or an organization gets larger than 100, 120 people, it really can’t function effectively because that is the size of a human community that can connect and work together. And so in a way, I almost think of larger companies as a collection of smaller organizations. And in that case, then it’s around how do the organizations align to a common strategy, and do we know what it looks like when we get there?
Arvind: So we are very passionate in Roblox about trying to answer this. Of course, we are larger than that size. I think there’s a lot of truth to what you’re saying. What we’re trying to understand is how can you be a good community of communities? And the way we are doing that is we think deeply about a recursive structure across the organization. So we’re organized into eight groups, and then those groups under them have teams, and under the teams you have pods. And when you get to a pod, you’re talking about like a dozen people or so who can work exceptionally well. We’re hoping that within this recursive structure is a way that we would unlock and be like a very cool large company.
We are at 2,500, which is still not the scale of a 100,000-person company. But one thing we think a lot about is how do we take the long view and establish primitives and foundation muscles that will stay true when we grow from 2,500 to 10,000 to 100,000. This is our approach to it is very actively thinking about, we don’t want to be the sucky large company, we want to be the large company that thrives and how do we get those muscles in place now?
Sharon: And so what are those foundational capabilities that you’re building in now and how are you doing that?
Arvind: So the team is typically about multiple pods and we have a definition of what a well-run pod looks like and it’s not too hard. Clear goals, accountable to metrics, thriving people, and then like you share your progress towards your vision on some regular basis. So there is some routines for that as a team. And then those things just defined crisply for all sizes, a size of twelve, a size of 100 and a size of few hundred and eventually a size of few thousand.
And we are constantly iterating on that. Every group we do an end of quarter review as if the group leads themselves are the CEOs of that and that’s what we believe in. And we post the review, spent fair amount of time and debriefing and saying, how can we do that better? So we are constantly thinking about routines for community of communities and how can you execute that, learn from it and then evolve it. So that’s some of the foundational muscles you’re building.
Sharon: So just like maybe over the last six to twelve months, what’s something that you’ve learned that you’re moving toward in that way?
Arvind: Yeah, so we’re constantly thinking about what is right in terms of OKRs. Do we be at an OKR level or do we go to a level below where it becomes a little bit more real to people and connecting it to their work? So that’s one area where we had some evolution in our thinking. We’ve also been evolving the metrics that we want to hold accountable at the company level, group level, team level, pod level. So creating visibility for that has been another area that we gain that we made fair amount of progress in.
End year Qs is another example. The end of quarter reviews that we do, we spend a fair amount of time thinking through the content that will be most useful for the adjacent communities, the content that will be most useful for the presenting community or group itself. So those are a few things that we have made progress on. Of course, we believe in, like making all of this systematic. That’s why I have the role of people and systems. So we’re building a range of tools to make it easier for people.
Sharon: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Well, at some point, if you’re willing to show them, I’d love to see them.
Arvind: My desire is to open source it. So I believe that things get better when you share, and share it like there is nothing that we do, which we think we cannot share it with the world. So we will. Just a question of prioritizing and making time for doing that.
Sharon: Absolutely. And when you’re fast growing, of course, that has to be the priority, is the foundation that can support that fast growth.
Arvind: Maybe I’m taking this on a tangent, but the thing that, in the spirit of the openness and transparency, the thing that I’ve seen different about companies is not the ability to come up with an idea, it’s the ability to execute that idea. So I absolutely think that you need to have a very good idea and then you need to execute it. And if you have a very good idea, the only way to make that idea better is to share it with everyone so they can give you feedback on it. Because we are never, ever going to win with the strength of our ideas. We’re going to win with a combination of that idea and execution.
Sharon: Yeah, that’s really right. So you have a different seat than I have. And then a lot of our leaders, having been in evolution of tech for a while, what do you see forthcoming around how evolutions in technology may be aspects of generative AI or other kinds of machine learning? How does this affect leadership? How does this affect your leadership? Or how might it affect our collective leadership over the next three to five years?
Arvind: Maybe I’ll share a model that I’ve been playing with right in mind. And then I use that to think about how does it change leadership. So I think in the beginning of the initial era of tech, you had a single person who was capable, and you really amplified the capability of that person by giving them a piece of technology. I think of that as the amplification of the individual phase.
Now, in the second phase, which was both Internet and mobile, are aspects of that phase, is what you did, is you made it a lot easier for people to communicate and collaborate with each other. Right? You know, good video conferences, you know, things like Google Workspace, your Slack, a bunch of things, just help people to get work done well as teams. I remember early engineering, it was super hard to collaborate, only code. And now when you use GitHub and so on, it’s just a lot easier to do it, right? So I think of the second phase is amplification of the team.
I think we are at a third phase right now, which is an amplification of a mixed team. And what I mean by that is the team is no longer just humans. It is a combination of humans and machines. So now what you have is like when I think I was talking to somebody who was starting a company and jokingly said, my co-founder is GitHub Copilot, because that writes half the code. And so you have to think about, and when you look at large language models in Gen AI, what’s happening is this notion of agents, which will do a bunch of busy work for you in the background and, like, amplify you. So the team is no longer you, it is you and a set of machines. And the ability to include these machines in that process is going to determine the success of your team.
So think of the first era. Leaders who recognize that tools like Excel are necessary to amplify individuals were the ones who are successful and who set conditions for that built great teams. In the second era, leaders who understood the importance of collaboration and the power of teamwork were the ones who are successful. In the third era, the leaders understand this that you’re going to have this augmented intelligence team, a combination of machines and humans. And what are the conditions that need to be true to nurture that and promote that, are the ones that are going to be successful.
Sharon: So what do you think the different leadership challenges when we have these mixed teams of machines and humans working together somehow?
Arvind: So in some ways, the primitives of what you think about are not very different. You just have to apply it to a new context, right? So when technology changes, you’re not asking different questions, but you’re kind of re asking some of the basic questions. Right? So like for example, one is there’s a speed of evolution that’s happening. So how can we stay current and top of it is an important question to ask. The second question to ask is how is the work that I’m doing or my team is doing or my organization is doing going to be very different? And what would I have to do if I were to reimagine it, assuming that I had nothing that I had today? So that’s like a second question that you’d have to ask yourself.
The third is what kind of skills do you need in the organization? The fourth is what kind of new ethical safety civility challenges are being now brought into four and how do I prepare to be responsible in dealing with that? So, like there’s a fourth dimension. These are some sample questions, not exhaustive questions. But I think you got to ask, there is something that’s changed in the environment and you can’t continue to operate the way you’ve been operating.
So you got to go back and ask the questions to say this is a new environment. How do I deal with this environment? What are my ten basic questions that I want to ask? And do I have good answers to these ten basic questions? That is how I think you can be ready and prepare for this change.
Sharon: I’m curious, have you talked with Dart Lindsley at all about the inverted organization and the two-sided market of employees?
Arvind: This has been many years ago. I haven’t spoken to Dart lately.
Sharon: Well, it just made me think what you were saying because what he’s been doing a lot of thinking and talking about viewing employment as a two-sided market and shifting the way that we view the employer employee relationship to be more similar to the company customer relationship that we are selling, if you will, a job to a person and the job is the product. And he’s really thinking a lot about how to rethink the way we design jobs similar to how we design products. And there was something that you just said that brought that to my mind.
Arvind: I think it’s a very powerful one. And you don’t have to think about what is in the future. The future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed, right? And I like the framing quite a bit. I think the companies that are able to overcome inertia and think about the inverted organization model, a product model for employer and employee, as well as how does this new burst of technology that’s happening, how does it change everything you’re doing are going to be very well poised
We are doing our best in Roblox to stay abreast of all of these and, you know, rethink a bunch of practices and from a fresh perspective. But I love this model of a customer and like a job as well. And I think there’s a lot of power to it. Maybe one other additional thought to it is we’ve always in the enterprises being very enamored by the sports metaphor, where you’re actually contracting the person for a very clearly defined set of skills for a period of time, and then you’re never employed for life and you go and you have to be very relevant to get renewing your contracts.
You’re kind of drawn to the model, but there are practical implications of doing it at a scale, because people want like a sort of certainty. And it’s just, it’s very disruptive for a single company to try and do it as opposed to the ecosystem to do it. I suspect we may run into some of those challenges in this product model.
Sharon: That’s very interesting. This is a big piece of how I’m imagining we will evolve as leaders to think differently about what experience are we offering, and maybe that’s a good transition. One of the things that I saw in your Musings blog, KC Musings, is you’re talking about the balancing of being both demanding and supportive. And I think you were quoting someone else’s conversation there. But I find this very compelling.
And I’ve done a lot of facilitating of leadership classes over at Stanford, at the business school. And one of the things we do is this class everyone calls touchy feely. It’s interpersonal dynamics. And what we talk about in that class a lot is how to be both challenging and supportive. I think that’s somewhat similar to what you’re describing. So I’d love to hear how do you put this into practice and maybe a story or two that others could draw inspiration from.
Arvind: Yeah, yeah, I’m happy to go there. But before that, thanks for reading my Musings. I think that will make three people now, my mom, my wife, and you who have read it. I’m happy to increase the total number of people who have read it by 33%.
Sharon: Look at that. I also really love that you write when you do, and then you say, oh, it’s been a while. And I’m like, yeah, that’s kind of how I write, too. So I feel good about it because it’s self-affirming and it’s thought provoking.
Arvind: I think you got to. For me, it’s like realizing that you’re doing a disservice if you don’t do both together. If you’re very supportive, but you’re not challenging, you’re just creating somebody who’s going to have not lived up to their potential. If you’re challenging but not supportive, you know, frankly, you’re being an asshole, right? So you don’t want to be on like either end of these. Right? And I don’t see a better version. I mean, I don’t see that’s the golden quadrant to be in. Right?
Being really empathetic, but not sitting on low bar, it just unlocks a level of performance in people. That is probably the biggest reason to come to work. Ultimately, you have to come to what is your role as a leader. And I strongly believe that it is not about your success, but it is about helping other people be successful. And if you internalize that and become a giver and really think about how to think of others and not of yourself, you have to. This is what you’ll have for your child. You’ll be challenged and supportive. Why would you not do it for people you work with?
Sharon: Its interesting because what you said just goes right up against the edge of thinking about how can we cultivate more, take away some of the hierarchical projections at work that get in the way, that people resist authority or people succumb to authority and they’re not bringing what I might think of as their whole full thinking self into their role. And so part of the job of leader is creating an environment where others will thrive. Same as parenting.
But in parenting we have this given power differential. And while we do have power differentials at work, part of what I’m most struck by that you said you loved about, I think it was Palantir, was that everyone was in and bringing it and giving it and contributing. I guess what I’m trying to look for is how do we acknowledge the power differentials without minimizing the value of everyone’s contribution?
Arvind: Yeah, yeah, no, it’s such a good question. I think in my purest days, I had the belief that this power dynamic could be eliminated. But I realized that as I get more gray, that humans are humans and it’s not going to change. It’s not going to change easily. So I think of it more as how do you manage it so that the negative effects of it, the power dynamic has some advantages to it. There is hierarchy is an organizing function. So it’s easier to say when there are hundred opinions like, here is the course that you’re going to pursue. So you have to acknowledge it for the value that it brings.
But then that gives you the ability to think about what are the downsides that this framework has. And so one downside is that it doesn’t let people try because they are trying to do something that they don’t believe in and haven’t had a chance to speak that. So that is one big downside. The second is it has got the risk of doing the wrong thing because people overweight the voice of the authority. So first of all, you got to get the principle that it’s not a bad thing, but it needs to be managed.
And then you can go through a whole range of techniques. The techniques that I like are one, it just make yourself accessible. Like when people see you as a human, then they know that you can be reached and you can have a conversation. And second is there is no reason to be disrespectful to anyone, right? At the moment, you act like an ass even once. The impact of that is huge. And the third is like, know that people who are coming to you with a point that is different from yours, it has taken a lot of courage for them to come to you. And so, like, deeply respect and be grateful for that.
The other things you can do is just speak less, speak last, show, share your point of view and color it with the conviction you have. So I would often say that here’s what I think we need to do, but I have low to medium conviction, or here’s what I think we need to do. I have high conviction. Right? And both are fine because then your team knows, like, you know, how will you stand? I can go on with a range of techniques, but like, I think ultimately, how a leader recognizes the value of hierarchy and manages the downside very intentionally is going to be a key difference.
Sharon: Yeah. And that is exactly why in the intro, I talk about working with people to build cultures of accountability and respect. I find those are the two primary human needs. What am I accountable to do here? And will you respect me as I am doing it? Can we collaborate in a way that together we can hopefully come up with something? That’s a good idea. Try it out. Keep moving. I really think managers, leaders who lose their temper, they just lack the emotion management skill, which of course can be developed.
Arvind: You make a really important point. People talk about what are the external things I need to do to be a good leader. But I think that’s the wrong question. The right question is, what’s the internal transformation that you want to achieve in life. And when you pursue the journey of that internal transformation, you automatically become a better leader. Right? So it’s not about how do I not get angry or lose it with my team. It’s about how do you not get angry as an individual and hurt yourself. Right? And when you answer that question, then it just cascades to how people experience you.
Sharon: So you’ve just reinforced, very succinctly a core belief of mine, which is leadership is first and foremost self-management.
Arvind: 100%. In fact, I think it’s such a big part of leadership that I don’t know if there is anything else other than that because the rest of it just comes automatically for free. You just have to do that. Or then, like, I don’t have any illusions that I’ve been very successful as a leader or something, but if I think, like, if someone says, like, what’s being the reason for any success? It is the success in any internal transformation manifesting externally.
Sharon: So I love that you brought this up because my very next question is what our listeners love most and I think what each of us as human beings love most is to hear other people’s stories of what they had to vulnerably face in themselves to grow and reach the next level. And I’m wondering if you could share maybe some of your own self development. What did you have to come face to face within yourself, and how have you, and how do you continue to manage yourself so that you can lead effectively?
Arvind: I’ll talk about maybe one, if not a couple of big unlocks for me, right? And one big unlock for me was just realizing that life is for giving and helping, and life is not for taking and taking self-serving. And I think that earlier in my life, that thing was not so clear. And somehow, I don’t know what influences you have as you grow up in college, which are always about, like, how do I get more money, more power, and, like, a better title? And, like, those very superficial pursuits are what you fill your head with.
And dusting those cobwebs has been really important. That, like, you know, life is not about pursuit of money. It’s not about pursuit of some form of power. It’s not about pursuit of some form of fame. All of them are very hollow, and they leave you. It’s like drinking seawater. It just makes you more thirsty, and it makes you sick. But instead, when you frame it as life is for, like, you know, connecting with other humans, helping them, and for serving them and going through your own internal process of mastery, I think that to me was a big unlock. I cannot say transition from that because it’s a journey. We are always being made. But the more I work on that as a core message, I think that helps significantly.
Another aspect of it is you really want to come to terms with how much you want to be driven by your ego. Right? And is that like a helpful thing or a harmful thing? And I find that when I was ego driven in life, I shouldn’t say when, like, when I am ego driven in life because always go through phases, just the duration of that phase, hopefully my life is decreasing. But when you’re ego driven, I don’t think you generate good outcomes. I mean, you may generate outcomes, but I don’t think they’re good long-range outcomes that are helpful for all.
Sharon: How does someone recognize when they’re being more driven by ego? And what’s the alternative?
Arvind: My general view is what comes in the way of recognizing what is obvious is a state of dizziness. So I don’t think you have to try too hard on how to recognize. You have to create the conditions where recognition is just happening all the time, and then it’ll just come to you. Right? And if you’re too busy, you’re going to be stressed. You’re going to, at some point in time, given to being very ego driven. So you just have to question yourself on, like, do you have the right balance in life? Are you too busy? And if you work on that, if you have deep work, meaningful work in the flow, not crazy busy, then you’ve created the conditions for introspection.
Sharon: Yeah, I love that. I’m going back up to something you said at the very beginning about the importance for you of three things in cultivating your leadership of reading, learning and feedback. And I’m wondering, like, was there some feedback you got along your journey that really helped you shift in a particular way? What was that? And how did you internalize it and move forward?
Arvind: Yeah. So I think for me, like many humans, the desire to be liked was a big driver, really. But that causes you to fall into the zone of ruinous empathy, right, where you’re not direct with someone. At the same time, you know, you are being like, very kind. And that was my trap for a really long time. And this feedback that, not in as clear words, but feedback that I had held back on critical development, feedback for people because there’s a desire to not be an ass and be liked was much more prominent than the improvement of the person, was very valuable for me to come to terms with, you know, with just being much more direct and kind.
So then actually, you don’t go from ruinous empathy to direct and kindness right away. You go to direct and being harsh. So I fluctuated between those zones, and I tried to spend more time with the direct and kind zone, but I think feedback was very helpful for me.
Sharon: Thank you for sharing that. I do appreciate it. So what would you say is your current learning edge as a leader? What are you focusing on now going forward?
Arvind: I’m really intrigued by what’s happening in the world of artificial intelligence. I think it is going through an explosion similar to Internet and mobile. And it’s happening at a pace that was not there in Internet and mobile. So I’m just reading a lot about it, trying to understand it, to see if you move to this world of augmented teams of humans and machines, what has to be true there. And I think, like being this, having this unique role of technology and people function lets me think about it through both these lenses. So that’s what I’m learning, and it sparks my curiosity.
Sharon: Is there a piece of feedback you received lately that makes you think you want to refine some aspect of how you’re leading?
Arvind: I think one feedback I often get is that there are too many things in my plate and don’t spend the amount of time that people need with them. I think there is definitely truth to it, and there is like, of course, a flaw that I have, which is when I think of the four things that are important to me in life, once I get that done, I just spent all of my remaining time working. Right? And which is a little counter to some of my beliefs, but I’ve not been able to come to terms with it and get better at, you know, focusing on the things that only you can do and delegate more. So that’s an area that I’m working on.
Sharon: It’s so great to hear you say that out loud. And I bet lots of listeners like, oh, me too, because that’s one of the hardest things. And find sometimes I like to offer a rubric, which is if you think someone can do what you’re doing 80% as well, you should maybe delegate it.
Arvind: Yeah.
Sharon: Take the time, you know, make sure that you’ve got confidence in their thinking that they and you are in sync, but 80% is enough. Let’s move it on. I mean, that goes counter to the perfectionist thing, but…
Arvind: Yeah.
Sharon: It does exactly that. And that’s the dilemma, because I want to be the very best, but sometimes suboptimizing is optimal. As strange as that sounds.
Arvind: I think there’s a lot of truth to what you’re saying, and I think as I reflect on some of the recent experiences, even though my belief was that it was 80% as good, when I’ve actually let it go, it’s been like 120% of what I could do. And so it’s like, oh, maybe I should have done more of that, right? So that 80% is actually might be just your own illusion and myth. And I think the rule is very good in causing you to go towards that change. But the change may end up with outcome being better than what you could have done.
Sharon: What could possibly be better than that? A metric that exceeds your target. That’s really a good thing. So, yeah. Well, I’ve so enjoyed our conversation. I want to wrap with my classic. So, the name of this podcast, the title is To Lead is Human. And I wonder, what does this mean to you when you think about it from a leader’s point of view?
Arvind: I love the name of your podcast, by the way. And I think the way I think about it is connecting to some of the discussions we had. You got to understand, what is it that is most human about us? And that’s really about connecting with people, then unlocking their potential and in that, a business outcome is satisfied the more you don’t have different personalities for work and non-work, and you’re just like, get your core philosophies right about what it is to be human, and as I said, for me, it’s love and service and mastery. So those three things are the core things that resonate with me. You will just realize that there is such a beautiful application of that in the workplace.
Sharon: I have to share with you what those of you listening won’t see it, but I’m holding up a little card that I keep on my desk from a poet named Spring Washam. Can you see it?
Arvind: Yes, exactly. Such a beautiful line.
Sharon: I am forever remembering that everything is here to teach me how to love.
Arvind: That’s exactly right. I strongly believe in that.
Sharon: As do I. Well, I guess we’re pretty much wrapping up. Do you have a piece of advice you’d offer to our listeners if they aspire to build these accountable, respectful human workplaces that are so exciting and successful to work at?
Arvind: Focus on like the inner transformation. Who do you want to be as a person in life and let the beauty of that manifest? And, you know, yes, the clues are to accelerate the journey. I believe that the purposes that all of us have is really not that different. And as I said, it’s like some combination of love, service and mastery. And the more it becomes your own answer, everything is just like absolutely wonderful after that.
Sharon: That’s terrific. Well, thank you, really from the bottom of my heart, KC, for being here today and talking with me about these extremely important concepts about how we bring people along in the workplace, how we show up as leaders, how we cultivate environments for success. I imagine lots of people are going to want to know how to keep track of you or find out what you’re up to. So of course, I did pitch your Substack already, but why don’t you go ahead and tell people where they can find you?
Arvind: You can ping me on LinkedIn. I try to respond to anything which is a genuine connection, though it may be delayed in it. I write in LinkedIn about topics that are more technical, that are interesting to me, or topics around leadership. And as far as my thoughts and evolution, I write it in the KC Musings blog on Substack. So thank you for having a really wonderful conversation.
Sharon: Wonderful. Thank you so much. Please stay with us for a moment and I’ll share some takeaways from my conversation with KC and a coaching tip that will help you uplevel your own leadership starting right away.
Leading is a choice. KC clearly discovered that for him, and perhaps for all leaders, he had to deliberately choose to take the leadership path. He advises leaders to first decide who they want to be in their own life, and only then to consider how this identity will inform their choices aa leader. It helps, KC says, if you can be your same self both at and outside of work. This makes it a lot easier to be transparent, which builds interpersonal trust.
Reflecting on my conversation with KC today, there are three main takeaways I’d like to share, plus a bonus. Leading is service driven, not ego driven. To ensure he’s keeping the right balance, KC regularly reflects on two questions, what is my job right now and what needs my attention? Those are the immediate questions that keep him focused on the service needs in the organization. He supplements this with a third longer term, do we have the right team today that we’ll need for tomorrow?
All early-stage companies face this challenge of balancing when to start recruiting for the talent you will need often well before you need it with the clear business signals that say it’s wise to begin hiring. Leaders grow other leaders. KC points out we must unlock potential for individuals in the organization. And for us to do that, we must provide others with stretch goals and then guide them, offering a blend of challenge and support as they grow. Of course, this means that leaders will need to free up enough time to coach and guide the other leaders as they’re growing. So this means delegating.
I typically advise executives that if someone else can do a job 80% as well as you, you should delegate it to them as a way to help them grow. KC laughed at this and then told us that when he successfully does this, he finds they may actually do the job 120% as well, not just 80%. And certainly he said it made him more curious. And with AI on everyone’s mind and the uncertainties about how it will impact our lives, I asked KC, how did he think leadership might need to change?
To this end, he asks you to think about four things. One, what will be the speed of evolution and how do you stay ahead of it? Two, how is the work our organization does going to change for the individuals, for the teams, and maybe for the whole organization? Can we challenge ourselves to redesign the work from scratch as if we started with a blank whiteboard? Third, what skills will we need in our organization? And I would like to add, do we build that talent or do we buy that talent, meaning grow people from within or hire from outside? And the last question KC wants you to consider, and I really want to support him in challenging everyone to think about this. What are the new ethical, safety and civility challenges that we should be responsible for as leaders? And how do I prepare myself for this responsibility?
The last takeaway from my conversation, and maybe the most important one for everyone listening today, is KC’s admonition that if you don’t make time to take care of yourself today, you probably won’t make time for it tomorrow either. So he’s prioritized his spiritual practice, exercise, nutrition and sleep from early in his career, and he keeps them on his calendar. As for today’s executive tip, I say we take it directly from KC. Take your own calendar out right now if you’re in a safe place and schedule some of the self-care activities that you need, just as you would schedule an important meeting. You, dear leader, are a human being first, not a human doing. And we must care for ourselves if we’re to provide the focus, energy and delivery that will build our organization’s success.
I’m Sharon Richmond. And this has been To Lead is Human. You can find out more about me at leadinglarge.com dot that’s L-E-A-D-I-N-G large dot com. To Lead is Human is part of the Mirasee FM podcast Network, which also includes such shows as Once Upon a Business and Making It. This episode was produced by Cynthia Lamb. Andrew Chapman assembled the episode, Marvin del Rosario edited it, and Danny Iny is our executive producer.
Hey, don’t miss our upcoming episodes. You can follow us on Mirasee’s FM, YouTube channel, or your favorite podcast player, which might be where you’re listening right now. I have two requests for you. First, put down a starred review and tell everyone what you took from today’s conversation. I want everyone who reads your review to listen as well. And second, make sure that you share something you learned with another colleague, because the more leaders we help to grow, the better leadership will become all the way around. Thank you so much for listening, and I’ll see you next time on To Lead is Human.