RHR 159: Dare to Be Naive with Joshua Berry

Joshua Berry: 0:00

You don't need me or someone else telling you what to adopt. And here's the five things you need to do. You need to create a practice for yourself to learn how to adapt. And that's also what my book tries to do is it provides examples. And then it trips over itself trying to say like, don't do this example I gave you just reflect on it and say, What do you believe, because you need to build those muscles to learn how to better adapt to whatever the right practice is not even the right practice, or whatever the next practice is that you need to try. Because it's only through that action that you're actually going to be able to collaborate with people and build a better workplace.

Kyle Roed: 0:35

This is the rebel HR Podcast, the podcast where we talk to HR innovators about all things people leadership. If you're looking for places to find about new ways to think about the world of work, this is the podcast for you. Please subscribe on your favorite podcast listening platform today. And leave us a review revelon HR rebels. Welcome back, rebel HR listeners going to be a really fun conversation today with us, we have Joshua Berry, he is the Managing Director and co founder of Econic, an innovation transformation and strategy consulting company, and B Corp. He has also written the book that is available now. Dare to be naive, thinking bigger to create business success, and joy. Welcome to the podcast, Joshua.

Joshua Berry: 1:23

Kyle, excited to be here with you. And Molly, thank you for having me.

Kyle Roed: 1:26

Absolutely. Molly, thank you for joining us and asking all the good questions.

Molly Burdess: 1:30

I literally

Kyle Roed: 1:32

all right, we're gonna get into it. And I'm gonna ask you the first question that I asked almost every author, which is what motivates you to write a book about being naive.

Joshua Berry: 1:41

First off, I did not start off writing a book about being naive and eventually ended up where I first started writing a book about evolving business practices that I was seeing, and really why the workplace needs to change from one that has been dominated for so long by a kind of a command and control, trying to predict things mechanistic approach to one that was more sense and respond and living organism, things that a number of your other guests have talked about recently. As I was writing the book, though, I stumbled across this amazing book called The healing organization by Raj Sisodia. And the person who wrote conscious capitalism and a bunch of other great books. And as I read that book, I realized, man, this is like the book I'm trying to write, but 10 times better. After pulling my hair out, and honestly crying a little bit, I got an opportunity to speak to Raj shared with the idea learned a little bit more about where he was at on his journey and what he was working on next. And I started to realize that maybe the the world didn't need another here's how work is evolving and do more good through business books. And instead, my research took a bent towards what stops leaders from actually acting on good in their business. And that's when I saw a pattern in some of the research, where a number of my interviews, had people saying, you know, this might sound naive, but, and then shared an amazing business practice or idea or something. And they use this word being naive, as it's almost like a shield or qualifier. And so that started on the whole journey towards that. So that's how we ended up with a book on naivete, and really this whole mission right now to continue to evolve how we work to further unleash human potential on the world's biggest problems.

Kyle Roed: 3:34

So that, that's really, that's a fascinating insight. And I, I'm curious, you know, that, that word, naive, there, it's, it's a little bit of a charged word, right? It almost the way that we use it, it almost sounds like Unreal, or unrealistic, right? Or or uneducated, or, you know, there's various different ways that you could use that word. So. So as you were conducting this research and started to identify some of these patterns. What what did you find that was so powerful about naivete? Yeah.

Joshua Berry: 4:13

Won, the publisher and everybody continued, till the very end to push against me using that word, actually. The idea that be curious or be a change agent, they said we'll sell more books. And but my whole intent here is not to do that. It is really to challenge some of these ideas. You hit on the fact that most people use the word naive or naivete to be unsophisticated or unworldly. And that is how it's typically used in most contexts. But our ancestors Molly Kyle May, really didn't use the word naive in a negative sense. In fact, it only became more pejorative in the last couple 100 years. The root word of naive natus just means natural We are innate, or that thing which was in you from the start, it only actually became like a negative back when being Native was a bad thing. And primarily during colonialism, right, like we had to do during the Age of Enlightenment, we had to be like, you don't want to be native, you don't want to be naive like that. And what it's done is you see that it's continued to carry over into a space that anything that's outside of the rational mainstream, gets labeled as naive, quite often. And yet, it's sometimes that naivete that we need to lean into, that actually grants us those transformational leads of genius, that really evolved things going forward. And so we can dive into more of that. But it was it was this light bulb moment of where I started to say, you know, what, actually, how can I help people dare even further to be at least a chosen naivete in the work that they're doing?

Kyle Roed: 5:57

I think that's really powerful. And I did not know that the root of the word it would, came from that and then was ultimately changed through colonialism. So it's, it's a really, that's really fascinating. I, I also, I mean, I, I were on a podcast called Rebel human resources, and our listeners are listening to this podcast, probably because we're trying to fight against kind of the status quo mainstream right. And so I think I think you're probably speaking to the right audience here. But But I also, you know, what's interesting about that is, is, as I think about the work that we do, as it relates to human resources, or being leaders of people, so much of it is not explained through rational thought so much of our work is very much just taking things as they come, being open minded. And, and, and, you know, really, kind of starting from a point of just trying to understand what's what's going on and admitting that you don't, in the beginning, so so as you were, as you were writing this book, and as you were starting to piece together, some of the research that you did, what were some of the aha moments? For what what really makes being naive, a powerful tool in our toolbox.

Joshua Berry: 7:14

Yeah, Kyle, you hit on a couple of them there, which is the ability to admit, when you don't know, what is a huge one. Curiosity, obviously, in both of those things, when you're thinking about just so much complexity and ambiguity, especially in the world of human resources today, you can't just take whatever worked somewhere else, and lifted and shifted over to your organization, right? Like, you need to be able to hold a little bit more loosely what the ideas are. So so there's power in that naivete. There's a whole nother vein of this though, which I explore further. And we talk about it as choosing to be naive, can actually allow you to unleash greater ripples of impact, or, which was a second ROI we started to talk about in the book. And it's really an understanding of this idea that it isn't just being naive, like, I don't know, like curious, but it's actually an optimistic area, authentic sort of view on people. And so what would happen if you naively trusted first, or you assumed the most generous explanation of somebody's behavior, think about how many HR policies and things that we do that are based upon principles that are not naive, they're actually quite cynical. And again, part of the research and this gets into in one of the chapters in my book, you know, we have so many great things that came from Frederick Taylor and principles of scientific management. But if you go back and look at some of the things that he said, You know, one of my one of the quotes that I highlight in there is when he said, you know, the person who is stupid enough to choose the career of hauling pig iron, can know where manage the people who haul pig iron, or at least menial tasks, right? So you have somebody who is stating, saying, We have to have divisions of labor, because there are people who are not smart enough to do things? Well, you have an underlying principle there, that then builds upon a bunch of practices and HR that, you know, we've now been rolling with for 100, some years or so. My intent with that other angle of naivete there is to say, what if you came back and you reflected on those principles and actually said, What do I actually believe in what would be possible if I actually believe people did have good potential if people weren't capable if people were worthy of trust? How would that manifest itself in the new ways? We're trying to work to that? It's

Molly Burdess: 9:55

powerful? Yeah, for sure.

Kyle Roed: 9:58

We're on the same page. There. They're

Joshua Berry: 10:02

happy to hear that. But it's crazy that that sounds rebellious, right, like, believing and trusting in people. I mean, it's fascinating.

Kyle Roed: 10:12

I do think it's, it's a really powerful principle. And I think anybody that's listening to this is probably understands this inherently or, or is open minded to this that, you know, the idea of best practices, HR best practices is BS in my mind, because there is no best practice, because every organization and every person is so drastically different, that you can't do it, the best way that you can do it in the best way that you think. But that might not be the best way. Right? And I think I think we're probably getting on it right.

Molly Burdess: 10:47

Or you can take that, that best practice and evolve it into something even better for your organization, or your people.

Joshua Berry: 10:55

I completely agree. And this is, you know, as I was listening to some of your episodes to this great podcast, one that really stuck out for me was a Dr. Brad Harris, back in December, I believe. The title was something like, throw out all your leadership books or something like

Kyle Roed: 11:15

leadership books or BS. That's a direct quote from from Brad.

Joshua Berry: 11:20

What's great about that podcast, and what I loved is I actually again, as someone who just wrote a leadership book, I agree with it. Because what we as and I was an HR practitioner, I had my gphr, like, I've been in the shoes here, the you don't need me or someone else telling you what to adopt. And here's the five things you need to do. You need to create a practice for yourself to learn how to adapt. And that's also what my book tries to do is it provides examples, and then it trips over itself trying to say like, don't do this example I gave you just reflect on it, and say, What do you believe? Because you need to build those muscles to learn how to better adapt to whatever to your point, Molly, whatever the right practice is, I'm gonna miss not even the right practice. But whatever the next practice is that you need to try. Because it's only through that action that you're actually going to be able to collaborate with people and build a better workplace.

Kyle Roed: 12:22

Yeah, absolutely. I also I love the the term ripples of impact or ROI, because it's, it's a very different definition of ROI than what we would typically think of in the, in the world of business. So walk us through what you mean by that, like, give us give us the definition of ROI in that context.

Joshua Berry: 12:39

Sure, sure. I'll give you an exam. I'll talk about the concept. And then I'll give you an example of it. The concept is something that I learned from Chip Conley and some of the faculty at the modern elder Academy. But it's basically this idea that each of us has an opportunity to kick off virtuous circles, right, our actions can feed into other people's actions, right. And a lot of times, we're caught in vicious circles. So right, a vicious circle, I, someone cuts me off in traffic, I get mad at them, I buzz around them, I flip them off, they flipped me out, like we get into this vicious, this vicious circle virtuous circle, right, the best visualization I have of that is the coffee drive thru lane, where everybody just keeps paying it forward. And just keep saying going and going and going and going. I started thinking about that, and applying this concept from from chips group and said, we really have the opportunity within our HR practices to also set off cycles, right? When you trust in someone, you create the greater likelihood that they are also going to give that trust back, right, but it has to start somewhere. And so when you start in those ways, and sometimes in naive ways, you can actually start to create the change that you hope to see in the organization. So here's a concrete example. I was working with a midsize engineering firm. And after a workshop, one of the leaders called up and said, Hey, I've got a separate question for you. I have a top performer on my team. He's plateaued in his career. He's looking for the next growth opportunity. Do you know anybody like a coach or someone I could connect him with? And as we sat there for a little bit and worked through it, the person who came to mind actually worked for the competitor of theirs in another state? And I said, this is gonna be crazy, little rebellious here. What would you think about connecting your top performer to this competitor who's actually in a role that they would be really great at into the future? This manager, you know, pause for a bit and after thinking it through, he said, You know what, that's okay. Why don't we go ahead and do that because at the end of the day, if it's good for him in his growth, that's more important. You know, it's suck if we lost it. top performer on our team, but I want to do what's best in the light of this employee. Fast forward months later, when I started to write the book, I called him up and got the rest of the story so that I could include it in the book. And he shared with me that that's exactly what happened, the guy went and met with his competitor down the street, learned some great things, and ultimately did decide to stay with that company. But what was more important was the trust that was extended there. Right came back in and another ripple and but it all came from not this gentleman, the manager's name was Michael, it all came from this belief that I'm just going to naively trust that doing the right thing for this employee is the right thing. And I'm not doing it because I'm looking for some backhanded way or because you know, the employee engagement surveys that I had to do stuff like this. Get busy. Taking care of your people is good business, holding their goals, sometimes above the organization's goals, good business. There's a lot of things like that. There's some other chapters in the book that get into letting your employees have side hustles, exploring pay transparency, stopping growth for growth's sake, a bunch of really naive business practices, that through the research, I was able to find plenty of organizations who are being successful, both and a good return on investment, but also, in those ripples of impact, as you call that Kyle,

Molly Burdess: 16:27

in my mind immediately went to non compete.

Joshua Berry: 16:34

That's a great one, right, like so. So you have a practice of a non compete, how I take people through this exercise all the time, take the practice, what are the principles or fundamental assumptions that we have underneath of that, right? In the book, the human enterprise, one of my favorite quotes is, all management decisions and systems have some assumption of human nature or human behavior underneath them. So what are the principles that we believe under non competes? Now this is where I get back to the adapter adopt. I don't advocate for cancelable, non competes or use all non competes. I just want HR practitioners and leaders to reflect back and say, what do we gain? And what do we lose by using non competes and realize that that it's not a perfect solution one way or the other, be intentional about the choices that you make?

Kyle Roed: 17:26

Love that. And I think it's you know, what's powerful about thinking about it that way is it's it's not a it's not a best practice. It's it's about shifting your the way that you think about things, right. So you know, every policy that we put together, are we asking ourselves, what is our assumption of human behavior here? Right, I'm sorry, we are? Or the way I think about it is, am I writing this policy for 5% of people that will abuse the system? Yeah. And therefore hurting the 95% of people that won't, ie every attendance policy that exists?

Joshua Berry: 18:01

Yeah, you're exactly right. You're exactly right. I mean, Kyle, you know, you're in manufacturing, one of the chapters in my book, highlights the manufacturing group Fabi, over in France. And when the CEO came into that role, it was a traditional manufacturing space where, you know, somebody needed a new pair of gloves, so they had to take the coupon from their boss and go to the supply cabinet and check it out and take 15 minutes off the line to be able to go get this new pair of gloves, because we didn't trust them to have it. John Francois said, more or less, like we were, we were paying 10 times the cost of gloves. Just for all of these policies that we have in place, what would happen if we actually trusted the mankind was good. And, you know, some of the things that he ended up changing there, which were very drastic at that time, ended up turning them into an extremely profitable, you know, market dominating company for a long time, just because they flipped it on its head and said, What would happen if we started from the idea of trusting in people, not to the exceptions, like you called out there? And

Kyle Roed: 19:12

I can't argue with that. Yeah. Yeah. We, yeah, manufacturing, there's so many examples. And a lot of it, you know, you look at like, going back to where we started this, which is what's the root of the word, right? Think about it in, like I think about in the context of what's the root of the process, right? Are we actually just doing something that existed back in the day at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? And that's why we're doing that like, like, let's, let's talk about a great example, the 40 Hour Workweek, right? Why do we have a 40 hour workweek? Do we need a 40 hour workweek? I don't know. Does it have to be Monday through Friday? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Why do we do that? Because we've always done it that way. Right.

Joshua Berry: 19:59

So Eddie Connick so our company we we have experimented with about every single type of working arrangement. We've got employees who work 32 hours a week, 35 hours a week, 28 hours a week. We've got permanent part time we have permanent ish contractors, we have Lex Tibet. I mean, it's when you meet people where they are, I think you're able to see it in a lot greater way. And you know, you're able to prioritize this idea, at least one of our core four values is whole person. And you're able to actually meet people where they are and honor the things that they do, and it didn't support can great for both sides there. It requires to your point a challenging to say, why have we done this in the past, and you may continue with it, but just raise it to a level of consciousness and be intentional about continuing on with the practice. And I think, you know, I've heard some of your other episodes where, you know, during the pandemic, and these last few years, we adopted a bunch of practices out of necessity, as we're emerging from these things. Now, we as HR practitioners need to step back and realize that we have the opportunity to be intentional about about keeping, or discarding or evolving even further some of the practices that we picked up over these last couple of years.

Molly Burdess: 21:22

Yeah, and for us, even, even for those of us who don't have the authority to make a change, or whatever, we were filling a position where we can ask a question to the right people like what why are we doing that? Why? What are the consequences of good and bad? And I think we should be asking a question.

Joshua Berry: 21:40

Yeah, yeah. And, you know, a quick tool to use for practitioners who don't feel like they have the authority to do it is I'm a big fan of model thinking, and how do you apply different models? Most people look at things as binary decisions. The simple judo move of turning things into a spectrum helps reframe conversations, right? So like, should we should we have non competes or not have non competes? That's too binary of a decision. Instead, you can ask the person say, Hey, see, we're considering this? How might we think about this problem or solution on a spectrum? Right? You've shifted the conversation to a space where now you're talking about, you know, loosening and tightening, right, from an org dev standpoint, or shifts in different things. And it already positioned that as a collaborative thing of how might we do this thing? Not let's argue yes or no?

Molly Burdess: 22:39

Yeah, completely track changes by dynamic. Yeah,

Joshua Berry: 22:42

yeah, we started some experiments that Econic around patriots. Apparently, it started too much at the beginning of should we have patrons parents are no patron. Let us that's not the right question. Let's back it into how much transparency might we like? And let's talk about the extremes. You know, back to your point at the very beginning, Kyle about naivete. I also put naivete on a spectrum. I'm not advocating for like willful ignorance at all. Like, I'm not saying that. And I'm not obviously saying I want you to be so cynical and pragmatic, that it causes you health issues, right. It's just about how do you choose intentionally little bit more naivete in across that spectrum?

Kyle Roed: 23:28

I love that. And, you know, especially, especially my internal business customers, a lot of them are engineers, accountants, operations. You know, there's so often people are looking for a yes, no, go no, go black and white. But but the way I think about it is it's like, yeah, it's a spectrum. It's like, it's like, there's everything, there's an equation, and there's like this line, and it's like, well, where do you want to be at on the line? But there's no, it's not like you're at one end or the other, you're somewhere in the middle? And it's just, you know, asking the powerful question that gets people thinking as opposed to be yes, no, that makes them just blindly follow your your guidance is the difference between good decisions and bad decisions a lot of times

Joshua Berry: 24:11

I agree. I agree. Especially before where there's so much complexity or ambiguity you're not going to get it right out of the gate. You need to be able to sense and respond your way through it which means you need trust and collaboration and to move to the next action not the getting the perfect right action.

Kyle Roed: 24:30

I would argue there's Is there really a perfect right action for most of the decisions of this world? Yeah,

Joshua Berry: 24:36

I I don't think that there is or at least that's not the right question right to to be to be losing sleep over

Kyle Roed: 24:46

you could ask the question but you probably Yeah, you're gonna run yourself into an early grave if you just constantly second guessing every decision you make and it wasn't perfect. You're not right. I mean, yeah, yeah. How much research is there around burnout and and how perfect isn't gonna lead to that, right?

Joshua Berry: 25:01

Yeah, yeah, we talk a lot about, especially with scaling organizations on the HR side of things, quite honestly, what is good enough? And what is minimally sufficient? Right, those things, especially if you're already, as you said, an over engineering type of organization, if you can adopt a first principle of minimally sufficient to get going, you can actually make a lot more progress than, you know, demanding perfection or, or waiting till it's, as you said perfectly right.

Kyle Roed: 25:35

Absolutely, one of my favorite examples of this, I had a, a great recruiter on on my team a number of years ago and had had recently graduated from from school and had all of these these wonderful tactics, and one of them was behavioral interviewing, and all the, you know, all of the things that go along with that. And a lot of the systems that she was prepared to install within the organization were tied around the assumption that behavioral interviewing is, is best. And that that is the way to interview. And she brought that to me, she put she put a program together and I and she, she used that term all behavior interviewing is the right thing to do. And I said, is it it? She looked at me like, Well, yeah, that's what my college professors said. And I, but, you know, my next question was, well, we'll, how did we select our top performers today? And, you know, it turns out that that, that it was not behavioral interviewing, it was, it was skills based assessments. And it was, you know, it was, it was tactile work, right. So, so how good or bad somebody is at telling you a story about past behavior was not a predictor of future performance, right. And it but but what it, what it highlighted was kind of the risk of, of assuming that one specific system or one or one way of doing something is is correct, in all situations, but But what it also prompted was, there are situations where we needed to use it, right. So it became more of a more of a targeted, you know, interviewing protocol, and, and ultimately much more effective. And quite frankly, it saved me the argument of the person sitting in my office and in two or three months saying, Why am I doing this stupid behavioral interviewing this is Ricky Sacra was also a little bit, you know, to prevent my headaches, but

Joshua Berry: 27:33

I love it, you just hit on two of the 10 ish mindset shifts that we talked to executive leadership groups, about half of our work is working to set up innovation strategy and innovation programs, innovation labs, corporate startup collaboration efforts, etc. And two of the main mindsets that leaders continually say, yep, we need to work on that is expire your data, and endure addiction to being right. And both of those are interesting, because they don't say you can't choose the thing that we used to do, it just says, expire your data. So keep looking for new sources and keep looking for new things and get new data, that it's still the right way to do it. And in your addiction to being right, like, let that ego set to the side. And, again, you may choose in your point behavioral interviewing again, but make it a conscious, intentional choice that you're back to it again, and be all right with the idea that it may contradict with the story you're telling yourself before. And that's okay. And those are things we learned from some of our partners at bionic, that's not part of Accenture, and I think has been extremely helpful in furthering innovative leadership

Molly Burdess: 28:48

and give naturally hard for people to accept that admit that their belief has maybe changed. That's a hard thing to do. It is, but it's okay.

Joshua Berry: 29:01

It is okay. And it is difficult. You know, one area that we've done some work in recently is is in what we call change management and what is 5.0 2.0 or something like that. The thing that fascinates me in this area is that the old idea of like the J curve of change management is very one sided because you're just saying like how do I change you from here to there and like convince you that it's better, you know, once we get across this chasm that the berkana Institute and some of what they've done around the to loop theory of change and how ecosystems evolve, acknowledges that there is an old way that you're used to do things that is that is dying composting at the same time a new thing is emerging. And so I bring that up to the point that you made Molly have to often as HR practitioner, we're just focused on how We get them to the new thing without creating space for acknowledging that you have an old belief that served me quite well probably for some part of your life. And I need to create a little bit of space for that, to, to be honored in during the hospice, whatever you want to call it, to be able to then make way for whatever this new way of working is. And what it does is it creates a little bit more compassionate and empathetic type of HR, or at least change management practice, when we actually create space for that, versus ignoring, right, that those previous beliefs are hard to change. Yeah, absolutely.

Kyle Roed: 30:38

That's a really, I mean, that's, that's a little bit of a different way of thinking about it, then, you know, just hating people who say, that's the way we've always done it. Right. And and, you know, there's, I think a lot of people hate that term, like, well, we've always done it that way. So but but inherently, there's usually a reason why. Right? Like, like, the system has evolved, and the behavior has evolved to be that way for a reason. So if you don't understand the reason why, then whatever your new thing that you're trying to work through, is probably going to be much more difficult to get done. Right. So that that may be a little bit of a lightbulb moment for you for me there.

Joshua Berry: 31:17

I agree. And you know, I dogged on Frederick Taylor 10 minutes ago or so. And yet, like, we are using some amazing technology here, I'm sure my health is better. And all of these things, because of all the great stuff that came through the scientific management revolution. And so there's definitely places that it served, there's definitely some good that's there. And we can continue to evolve how we work so that we can continue to make it you know, more more more conscious of how complex things are and more humane, right going forward.

Kyle Roed: 31:56

That's a perfect place to leave it and segue into the rebel HR flash round. So are you ready?

Joshua Berry: 32:02

i Yes. Here we go. Flash. Flash, right.

Kyle Roed: 32:07

Yeah, well, we'll put a sound effect and it'll be really cool or something. Alright, question number one, where does HR need to rebel?

Joshua Berry: 32:19

I'm gonna go with a non traditional space. And that is, in the words, we choose to describe HR, write words, create worlds, when we talk about people as resources, what do we gain with that? What do we lose with that? When we're in sales, and we talk about people as targets or prospects or funnels? What do we gain? And what do we lose by that? So I think we shouldn't continue to rebel in being very intentional about the words that we use.

Kyle Roed: 32:45

I don't disagree. Yeah, that's a good point. But my title still has human resources in it.

Joshua Berry: 32:49

Right? Even the evolution that capital, like human capital, and everything like, Okay, what do we gain? And what do we lose by using that term? Right. That's all I invite people to ask in, reflect on?

Kyle Roed: 33:01

That's a fair question. Yeah. Yeah, that's a hot topic. We don't have time for that podcast, we, we should just do a podcast about what is the title of HR?

Joshua Berry: 33:10

Yes, yeah, there we go.

Kyle Roed: 33:12

All right. Write that down. Why? Well, we'll do that for a segment. We'll do a debate. That could be fun. All right. Question number two, who should we be listening to?

Joshua Berry: 33:23

Who should we be like, like, who are thought leaders you should be listening to or like stakeholders, you should be listening to

Kyle Roed: 33:29

us, wherever you want to get with it. Wherever I tell

Joshua Berry: 33:31

you, I'm here should we be listening to I'll give you one or both. You should be listening to your employees, right? You shouldn't be listening to and understanding how to speak finance quite often, right? If you think of anywhere, being able to speak the language of finance, allows you to create the right proxies, you need probably to advance a lot of your people needs. So I think that's a second language people need to pick up. And then on the other side, again, one of my favorite people, maybe in this space right now is Aaron Dignan. And some of the work that they're doing at the ready, brave new work. And that book is a great one. I was lucky to have Aaron endorsed my book, and have learned a lot of great things in terms of what they're thinking about how they move through a new operating system within the people's systems of an organization. And you should listen to Kyle and Molly on the A rebel podcast.

Kyle Roed: 34:25

Wait. Yeah, that's, that's the last question. How can I listeners connect with you and where can they find the book?

Joshua Berry: 34:34

Yep, you can visit the website, dare to be naive.com. And the book is available at everything from indie bound to find the book through your local bookstores, as well as on the classics like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, as well as soon to be released the audiobook. So that'll be on Audible.

Kyle Roed: 34:58

Absolutely, we will have all that information in the show. You're not so. So pop them open and click in and check it out the book again is dare to be naive, thinking bigger to create business success and joy. Joshua Baer, thank you so much for joining us today. It's just been a wonderful conversation. And I look forward to continuing to engage with our listeners about all the learnings for today. So it's been a great conversation.

Joshua Berry: 35:22

Thank you, Colin. Molly. This was a blast. Appreciate it.

Kyle Roed: 35:25

Thank you. All right. That does it for the rebel HR podcast. Big thank you to our guests. Follow us on Facebook at rebel HR podcast, Twitter, at rebel HR guy, or see our website at rebel human resources.com. The views and opinions expressed by rebel HR podcast are those the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any of the organizations that we represent. No animals were harmed during the filming of this podcast. Maybe