In this episode, Jamey discusses the concept of leadership through the lens of curiosity, especially as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Jamey reflects on leadership lessons flooding platforms like LinkedIn, noting that while countless methods and archetypes are suggested, true effective leadership boils down to one universal trait: curiosity. By asking questions, leaders avoid the traps of certainty and rigidity, instead collecting information, diffusing tension, and building collaboration.

The discussion emphasizes how curiosity does more than just inform decision-making; it acts as a bridge for diverse voices to be heard within teams, allowing leaders to adapt approaches that truly fit their people rather than forcing individuals to conform to static systems. Jamey highlights practical ways to build this skill as an ongoing practice, drawing on ideas from Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and real workplace leadership scenarios. The episode wraps with actionable tips for leaders looking to embed curiosity into their daily routines for more inclusive and effective teams.

Key Topics Discussed:

1. The surplus of leadership advice and archetypes (LinkedIn, thought leaders, etc.)
2. The central role of curiosity in effective leadership
3. How curiosity benefits decision-making, collaboration, and tension reduction
4. Customizing leadership and workplace practices through team input
5. Diversity and inclusion as natural outcomes of curiosity-based leadership
6. Systems 1 and 2 thinking (Daniel Kahneman) and their impact on leadership choices
7. Practical strategies for fostering curiosity in yourself and your team
8. Examples of curiosity leading to more inclusive workplaces

I'm Jamie Applegate, Senior Director of DEI at Equity at Work, and this is your DEI Minute, your go-to podcast for leaders looking to navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace. Whether you're just starting out with DEI or looking to sustain your long-term successes, each episode will provide you with the actions you can take to move DEI forward at your organization, all in 15 minutes or less. Join us every other week as we break through the noise and help you do DEI right. Let's get to it.

Before we get started, this is Michelle Pfefferman, and I'm really excited to let you know that my new book, Do DEI Right, is now available. This is your guide to the Equity at Work Maturity Model, which shows leaders how to make DEI part of every day and drive great results. You can get your copy through the link in the show notes or wherever books are solved.

I have to admit something. I've been spending too much time on LinkedIn, and I see so many posts from people I know and suggested posts from people I should know about leadership and about what makes someone a good leader. Some focus on a specific process, like how a feedback sandwich is a good model, or how to run an effective one-on-one check-in. Some focus on more generalized archetypes, like being an alpha who dominates and drives to success, or being a servant leader who supports and empowers. Some share stories about an experience they had that taught them about good leadership, like when they had a manager who modeled a rigorous morning routine that set the team up for daily success, or having a manager tell them to go be with their sick kid and that the manager would finish the report that was due in a few hours. Some share stories about leaders they witnessed doing something great, like a leader who fired a client for being rude to another team member, or a manager who always took responsibility for a termination and handled those hard conversations themselves instead of asking somebody else to do it. Some folks share stories, I think some of them are apocryphal, about bold leadership decisions, like Jeff Bezos's rules for meetings, the two-pizza rule, no PowerPoints. Silence, the empty chair rule, disagree and commit ownership, or a story about Dan Price raising the minimum salary at his company to $70,000 to support employees, or Shopify canceling all recurring meetings for a month to see what was really important.

I am fascinated by these posts and the information they share, and I think it speaks to our desire for there to be some sort of ideal form of leadership. Some specific approach or philosophy or some defined set of actions and rules that will allow anyone to become an excellent leader regardless of the situation. But for me, the only leadership trait I've ever seen that is truly universal is curiosity. Good leaders are curious. They know and communicate how little they know, and they are always looking to learn more. Genuine curiosity starts from a position of not knowing. In every new situation, curious people ask questions, both in an internal monologue and to others around them, about what is happening. That curiosity has so many benefits.

The first one is it slows us down. If we pause and ask questions, we can push back against perceived senses of urgency and give ourselves time and space to collect more information and make more informed decisions. It gives us more information. While there's obviously a point at which we need to stop asking questions and just make a decision, More information is always valuable because it gives us a broader perspective on a given situation and can help tell us what a productive or effective course of action might look like. Curiosity also diffuses tension. So many workplace conflicts and conflicts in general devolve when people express an opinion, are met with resistance or with another opinion, and then dig their heels in. Asking questions— and again, focus on open-ended questions— It disarms people and it creates a genuine dialogue and reduces the temperature instead of stoking tensions. It also brings people in and promotes collaboration.

Asking questions—again, open-ended questions, not yes/no—allows people to give input and share their thoughts. It welcomes more perspectives and shows people that a leader wants to hear what they have to say and wants to incorporate their viewpoint into the decisions they're making. And finally, it models productive interpersonal engagement. It negates the concept of leaders as these all-knowing gurus and geniuses, and it replaces it with the concept of leaders as guides, as consensus builders, and as excellent collaborators. As it relates to DEI, being curious also promotes diversity because it puts the leader and the team in dialogue about the direction of the organization. I have seen Jeff Bezos's rules for meetings so many times, and it's always seen as some sort of inspirational gold standard to get to of how an effective meeting goes. And they seem great. I like the sort of smaller groups, avoiding just relying on a PowerPoint, although I think PowerPoints can be great.

Always thinking about who's not in the room. In his case, it was always the customer. But I also think that they only worked because the other people in the room either liked that meeting style or were at least willing to humor it. And I think what we don't read about is the many people who bristled at that style of meeting in that culture and end up leaving the organization. Curiosity would allow us to ask our teams what kinds of meetings they want. What rules work for this group in this setting? When the group changes, what rules work for the new group? Curiosity allows us to interrogate what we are doing, to ask why we're doing it, and to ask what could be better instead of assuming we know what's best. We can fit the systems to the people instead of trying to jam people into a system. We're still working towards the same goals, but we're not being rigid in there being only one way to get there.

In terms of diversity, it means understanding that so many people have unique goals and needs and life experiences and perspectives, and they can bring those with them and they can share what they need and want out of the workplace and they're going to be considered and thought of and incorporated. If you're struggling with curiosity, that's okay. Being curious is a lifelong practice. It does get easier over time, but you're never done becoming more curious. There is no perfection. For curiosity, I often think a lot about Thinking Fast and Slow, the Daniel Kahneman book. He talks about system 1 and system 2 thinking. So brief super brief breakdown.

System 1 thinking is fast, intuitive, and driven by emotions. It is a gut reaction to a stimulus. We do it automatically. Someone in a meeting interrupts a colleague. I think that person's a jerk. System 2 thinking is slow. It's deliberate. It's logical.

We reflect on the stimulus, place it within the context of what we know and what we don't know, and we come to a conclusion. We look at employee satisfaction data. Instead of jumping to a conclusion, We recognize that there is a burnout issue happening, and so we create a plan to address it. We cannot help but do System 1 thinking, and we cannot help making immediate judgments about a given situation, but we can build out practices to get to System 2, and a lot of those are built on curiosity. Number 1, make it a team sport. Create accountability structures and allow others and encourage others to ask why when a decision is being made. "Because I said so" is not enough. We should have a well-thought-out reason, which means that we should have paused to take time to think through how we are moving forward.

Another way to do it is anytime someone shares something, start with a question. Try to avoid responding to any comment or statement with another statement. Especially try to avoid negating what someone said. Instead, try to make your first response a question. That can include asking "Why?" When someone says something, no matter what your immediate response or sort of internal immediate response or thought is, just ask, "Can you share more about why you think that?" The main problem I see with leadership advice these days is that it still positions leaders as organizational superheroes who swing in, make bold decisions, and then everything magically gets better. But I think so often it misses the curiosity that it took to get to that decision. Instead of a feedback sandwich, can I just ask how my teammates like to receive feedback? Instead of this specific format for a one-on-one, why don't I just ask my direct reports what they need to get out of our one-on-ones, and I can tell them what I want to get out of them. Instead of being, you know, an alpha leader or a servant leader, can I ask my team what they need from me? When that leader set up that rigorous morning routine, how do they know what the team needed for daily success? When the manager tells the direct report to care for their sick kid, how did they know the child was sick in the first place, or that the direct report was anxious about child care? When Dan Price raised that pay to $70,000, how did he know his employees were struggling financially? All of these decisions were made because the leaders were curious enough to look into something they saw or heard an inkling of.

So if you want to be a great leader, please stay curious. Thanks. Links to everything can be found in the episode notes. This episode was edited and produced by PodGrowth with podcast art by me, Jamey Applegate.