Jim Wagner

Jim Wagner

Jim Wagner:I think as a leader and being fortunate and privileged to be in a position to lead an organization, it's incumbent upon that leader to create the space for everyone to thrive and to recognize when and if there are either systems in place, structures in place, that need to be broken down to create opportunity for everyone.Jeff Hunter:Hi, and welcome. I'm Jeff Hunter, and you are listening to coaching in the clear, the podcast committed to help you learn about coaching. Coaching is more popular than ever, and we believe that sharing in-depth personal conversations about coaching experiences is the best way for you to learn whether coaching is for you and how you can get the most out of your coaching practice. We are especially interested in how people use coaching to unleash their potential while creating market-leading big change businesses. Coaching in the Clear is a production of Talentism, a business dedicated to helping the world's most ambitious leaders achieve their ultimate goals by systematically turning confusion into clarity. We send out a weekly newsletter called the sense maker where we offer our latest thinking about issues affecting big change companies and their leaders, as well as provide other helpful content to enable you to unleash your potential, learn more and sign up at Talentism.com. So, Jim, thank you so much for being on coaching in the clear today. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your timeJim Wagner:Thank you for having me, looking forward to the conversation.Jeff Hunter:Good. So listen, I'm starting all my conversations the same way, which is, I would just like to know how you decided to enter the world of coaching, how to get a coach when was the first time he got a coach? Just take me through some of that narrative and background about how you approached coaching.Jim Wagner:Absolutely. So I think there's the long version, which is my own history going back as an athlete who was fortunate to have some incredible coaches and really learned about how important a coach is to anyone's individual success as well as team success. I think often times when we get into a business context and certainly as a first time CEO, which I was at, at Roland foods, when I started working with you as a coach you really realize you're in a position by yourself. It's actually a very lonely position where there's lots of decisions you need to make. There's lots of responsibility. And while I have mentors, I have friends, I have confidence. What I knew I needed was somebody who was going to work with me to provide the unvarnished feedback and help me to remove or see some of the blocks that existed in my own leadership style as well as in the business. So I was fortunate that I had great experiences with coaches in a different context and knew that I thrived when having that. So that's how I arrived at that.Jeff Hunter:Wonderful. So tell me, because you were an athlete, a very highly regarded athlete, and in incredible collegiate program as a waterfall polo player, I was a water polo player. Although I would imagine comparing your skill to my skill is a not a fair comparison, but let's just say we were both in the water splashing around. So tell me. Something that's fascinating, I was just talking to somebody this past weekend who was an athlete, and they were talking about the role of coaching and in helping get better. What do you think is a similarity between the sports context and the business context with that role of coach? Because obviously coaches take on different jobs and different contexts, but from what I've heard, people had coaches in their prior lives, in their, you know, sports and those kinds of things really seem to gravitate towards it more in business than people might not have had that experience. Could you help me sort of navigate that?Jim Wagner:Yeah, definitely. So I think that again, the good fortune that I had of having excellent coaches, even in high school and in college and with the under 20 U.S. national team was that great coaching is a constant feedback loop and it's about learning to learn and that every practice and every game is very much an experiment in the sense of improvement as opposed to the idea that winning is in kind of, the aspect of winning a game is about winning the game, which it’s not, it's about all of the preparation and all of the feedback and that, you know, you get that feedback in a game, then you realign, you get the feedback from your coach, and then you go and you try it again. And I think that's very much how I think about business, which is while we have a goal that you cannot just achieve the goal, the goal is about running a series of experiments and getting that feedback and quote-unquote being coachable. So I think a lot of people who haven't had that are challenged with the idea of coaching because they don't understand that feedback mechanism, that it's about a constant practice and it's about constant improvement as well as going into the unknown. There isn't an athlete that's ever played a game or run a race that didn't do something they hadn't done before, which is very much what business is all about. You're trying to achieve something that the company hasn't achieved before. You're trying to develop a product that hasn't been developed before. And so I think having that history and knowing to try to, the ability to figure out what you don't know, you can't do it yourself. You need those feedback mechanism. And I always found a coach to be the best way to do that. Jeff Hunter:Yeah. One of the things I know you and I have talked a little bit about in the past and I speak with my clients frequently about is the difference between goals and measures. And I think a key point of confusion since, as we have talked about many times, confusion is sort of our shtick, it's the thing we're taking a look at, we're reviewing performance and cognition through that lens. One of the things I think is very common is that people confuse goals and measures. And so in a sports sort of context, as an athlete, of course, as I said, honestly, not as accomplished as you, but as an athlete, what I figured out was if excellence is the goal, the win is the measure, but if the win is the goal then it gets pretty confusing because it creates a certain fragility and identification with the win, as opposed to the practice and the process of constantly pushing ourselves to find that outer limit of potential in the moment and outer potential in the game and find our own potential in that game. And I think that's something that I've always found very similar in a lot of different things, whether it's world working with world class performers on the stage or in film, or it's in business or sports or whatever it is, there's this thing of not confusing the goal of excellence with the measure of the win, the win is a nice sort of point in time. They can tell you things are probably on the right path, but you never know you could have gotten lucky etcetera. And I've always experienced in working with you that you kept those two things very clear in your mind. And I think that's what you're talking about.Jim Wagner:Yeah, absolutely. I think that the phrase that I use consistently is “if you run the system, the goals will come” sort of in, in the athletic context. And I think it's in the business context as well, which is if you're not running a system, which again is a certain set of experiments is you run it and if, and if you're running a system, then when you evaluate, if you achieved your goal or not, you then can tweak the system as opposed to what happens a lot of times is if again, taking this athletic metaphor a little further, if the goals are the objective, you actually don't know if it was luck, if it was skill if it was the quality of the other team, did you actually do what you set out to do? And I think that happens a lot in business as well, which is if revenue is a goal unto itself, there can be, you know, random revenue events. There can be one client who happens to grow faster, but underneath the system is not healthy. And so I think consistently focusing on running the system and tweaking the system, knowing that the goals are, as you mentioned, measurements along the way, and they're derivative of the effort and the experiments I think that's what keeps a company healthy and thriving as opposed to what I've often seen typically with investors and others is they're so focused on the metrics as being the goals that they lose sight of what a healthy business is and where what changes need to be made. And I think, again, this goes back to why that for me, that scenario of being a CEO who led and operated in the fashion, I just described but had investors who very much confused goals and metrics, also as what led me to reaching out, to working with a coach to try to understand my own confusion about that.Jeff Hunter:I want to come back to that point, cause I think there's something really important there, but you mentioned the word, you mentioned the phrase healthy business, and I just want to give a perspective on that because what I find in clarity coaching and in our methodology, that it can be very, it can be very confusing for clients who are seeking to gain a short term sort of outcome that are, you know, looking to flip their company or juice their valuation before the next big financial event, or make a big hire, whatever it is. There's just some, you know, some shiny object at the next level. And what we're trying to do is much more, as you say, systematic, right? What we say is systematically unleashing human potential, but it really is about the system by which people continue to find and unleash their potential. And our perspective is that every business is going to have luck and it's going to be unlucky. It'll be lucky and it'll be unlucky. If you're around long enough, you'll have your highs, you'll have your lows. If you take a snapshot at any particular time, you're going to either feel too good or too bad, but what's happening underneath all of that is that you've got an organization that is either fragile or is resilient, or is antifragile it's when an organization is fragile it is unhealthy. When we, as people are fragile, we are unhealthy small shocks. Whether it be a, you know, something that happens in our lives or an illness or whatever, small shocks can have big profound effects because we're just not healthy. And then a lot of people over the last 20 years have talked a lot about resilience, the ability to take the small shock and or big shock and be able to just keep standing. And while certainly resilience is better than fragility. To us the thing we're trying to do is find true health, which we believe is antifragility, which is the thing where when you get the shock, not only does it not knock you over, not only do you resist and stand tall, but you actually absorb it and improve. And I think that, that's consistent with your concept about learning what you're saying about learning, because the future is impossible to predict. And so therefore all we're trying to do all the time is learn the most effectively we can. So we keep improving our level of mastery to be able to deal with those unpredictable shocks. And I think that one of the things I've commented to you many times that I think you're an excellent operator and you have an incredible, like both creative and systemic sort of view as an operator, but being able to view the system and being able to view the health of the system and not get caught up in any particular measure, or even as you're saying goal, but just constantly sort of building the practice of being excellent in taking in new information and improving as a result of it means that you build excellent companies. And I think you also build excellent relationships. And I think you also create a place where people, that people are coming to work for you are finding an extraordinary experience and find something in themselves they never have before. Am I sort of feeding that back to you right? Am I hearing that correctly? Jim Wagner:Yeah, definitely. I think that’s certainly my objective in the organizations I've been fortunate to be a part of and to lead is to create an environment where, what you just described exists at in all facets of the organization, whether that be the customer dynamic, whether that be the supplier dynamic, but first and foremost within the employee dynamic, which is that every situation should be designed as a series. I know we've used the word experiments. I often use the word project in the language when I am running an organization, which is, we don't know what we don't know. And however lots of people approach things with certainty and oftentimes that means dictating to particular employees what they should or shouldn't do, which is not something that I'm wholly supportive of. I try to create a, with a team a situation where, again, it's this consistent feedback loop in terms of, we're always testing, we're testing the market, we're testing opportunities, we're testing customers, we're testing suppliers in the sense of what are we learning, not testing them in terms of a pass fail, but testing in terms of pushing the envelope asking the questions is the system resilient? Where is the system breaking down? Where do we need to maybe pivot away from certain things that have existed for years, but the market is moving away from us? There may still be revenue there, but if you, if you don't start to pivot now, that will change. And the company will be very fragile in the future. So I think it is being constantly diligent about that. And I think, again, it goes back to this athletic metaphor, which is one of consistently being in discomfort and because you're constantly pushing yourself and testing yourself to be better. Hopefully we get better sometimes, you know, just like a practice or a game. We don't always play our best and it didn't, you know, it doesn't always work out and we make mistakes, but hopefully we learn from those mistakes. And then, you know, come out the next day better than we were the day before.Jeff Hunter:So, I want to pick up on the thread about something you talked about a little bit earlier, you said a person should be coachable and I want to connect that to, so you now have changed contexts. You're not currently a CEO, you're currently an investor, a coach and an advisor. And if I was to give you just five minutes with somebody who is looking to you, either they wanted your money as an investor, or they wanted your time as an advisor, they wanted your wisdom as a coach. And you got five minutes with you to impress upon you that they are coachable. What would they do?Jim Wagner:Well I certainly start off with a bit of a life story with anybody that I'm speaking to about coaching. So having an understanding of where they've come from, what their genesis story is even going back to their upbringing, how they operate, how they operated, you know, across most of their life. Usually in that conversation and it oftentimes does become more of a conversation than just a presentation. You start to see the threads of where somebody has either achieved a lot, but there's recognition that, that came through the hard work of others who supported them along the way whether that's in different teams, whether that's professors, whether that's a parent or, you know, a friend that usually comes out. I think oftentimes if somebody in my brief experience around coaching, you have somebody who's coming to you who has been, it's been suggested that they should get a coach and maybe it isn't organic. And usually there's a trail of resentment of others that comes out maybe, or blame or, you know, things didn't work out. And it always appears to be somebody else's fault. I think. So the short answer to what you just asked is, does the person have a history and an internal culture of accountability? Are they willing to really kind of own up to, they're in the position they're in because of their own participation in that. That is first and foremost for me what I would look for in working with somebody is that culture of accountabilityJeff Hunter:You're hitting on a theme that I think will be an interesting thread to pursue. So I'm a huge believer in personal responsibility and in, I hope as you've experienced in our coaching, and as I work with a lot of incredible people, one of the hardest things, when a person's in pain you know, as you said earlier, leadership is a lonely position and a lot of times our coaches the only person they can speak with. And yet you're also depending on that coach, as you said, to give you the unvarnished feedback, and there's something in that moment where a person, a coach can both maintain your trust and help you continue to feel safe to explore, but also point out that you probably created the situation you're in. And that's incredibly difficult, I think for most people to accept. And what I've found is the people who are really good engaging with coaches, probably you could take a lot of different attributes under that personal responsibility, but they seem to have sort of two elements. One is hunger and the other is humility. And those display as sort of a ceaseless curiosity about themselves and their situation. It's not that they feel good about what's going on. It's not like everything's an adventure. They have emotions just like everybody else. They feel put upon, they feel victimized. Of course they do. But there's something in that, that they want to explore and get to the other side of. And there's sort of a relentless hunger and humility when you find either one of those things, absent the other, it can be very difficult when you find a hunger absent humility, you can end up with people who are very closed minded, bullying, etcetera. When you end up with humility without hunger, it becomes more of a contemplative act as opposed to a practical sense making, action taking sort of loop an experimentation loop. So those two things together, but under that concept of personal responsibility, as you say yeah, that makes all the sense in the world to me.Jim Wagner:Yeah. And I think that dovetails into, you know, similar to Carol Dweck you know, the open mindset versus closed mindset. And I think that the other aspect of somebody I wouldn't necessarily look to join to coach is when they're looking to have the coach solve a very specific problem, as opposed to your point about intellectual and curiosity around how did I arrive here and how do I keep moving forward? I think oftentimes a few people I have talked to where there's the resentment and the anger about where they are, and they just want to solve that problem, thinking that problem is the real problem. If that makes sense? And so I think I tend to lean towards people who have the same goal that all of this is a practice. The we're trying to move a company or an organization into a future that we're also creating at the same time. And it isn't just an individual problem to be solved.Jeff Hunter:Yeah. I love that. And I experienced the same thing, although I believe you and I have talked about this in the past. I think there's a lot of different approaches and tradition to coaching and clarity coaching. We certainly are not there to solve any specific point problem because we believe that all problems are a manifestation of a larger sort of thing that's happening around your level of clarity and confusion, certainty. But there's something now I want to go to, I think what is an interesting area in a conundrum of leadership, especially right now and frankly, hopefully into the future. So, I'm a huge believer in personal responsibility. I'm a huge believer that in order for you to learn, you have to own your experience and you have to own your situation and what's happening around you. And the coach can help form a sort of externalization of separating out what is true about what you can control and what you can't control, right? There's a lot of things that happen in business and in life that you just can't control. And obsessing about those things is generally not effective, nor helpful. There are a lot of things you can control but you believe you can't, they're out of your power or there of somebody else's making, but there's also a lot of things, and I'm becoming more and more open to this, and I'm becoming more, I'm learning more about this. There are a number of things that you can't control, but are controlling you. And aren't grounded in acts of nature or in you know, forced mature. They're grounded in the bad behaviors of others. And they're grounded in the systems created by the beliefs underneath those bad behaviors and by the bad behaviors themselves. And we see this when we're leading, where we're trying to create open and inclusive environments, where people are free of the sorts of ongoing threats, aggressions, and indignities that many people have had to suffer for long, long, you know, millennia because of the color of their skin or their gender or their orientation. And so as a leader, how have you thought about that? How have you thought about this duality of the personal responsibility with the, in the separation of the things you can control and you can't control, with the reality that there's a lot of stuff that happens inside of institutions and organizations that just isn't good and it isn't right. And we're responsible as leaders because we have the power to fix those things. And it's when somebody is raising an issue consistent with that, that it isn't them blame shifting, it's them actually raising something that is systematically terrible and needs to be addressed by leadership. How, how do you as a leader work through that?Jim Wagner:I think that in, I think that's where the phrase personal responsibility gets thrown around a little bit in not necessarily the best way, right? So to your point, you know, blame shifting and to everybody saying it's their personal responsibility to change, etcetera. I think as a leader and being fortunate and privileged to be in a position to lead an organization, it's incumbent upon that leader to create the space for everyone to thrive and to recognize when, and if there are either systems in place structures in place that need to be broken down to create opportunity for everyone. I think oftentimes in the context of business, lots of bad behavior gets justified going back to what we talked about a little earlier ago, a little while ago, which is this idea that goals are the end all be all. So there's this conflation of all these things that we're talking about, which is why while I am extremely goal oriented, it's how you arrive at that goal. That is the most important part of this conversation. I think that culturally, we have lost sight of that. And we think of the goal as the end all be all which then allows or condones a lot of behavior that should not be condoned because potentially an individual is a producer or they're responsible for a significant amount of revenue for the company. Those are small examples. But the going back to how I view as a leader, the personal responsibility, it's personal responsibility of the leader to lead an organizationnwith integrity, to be a place where everyone who comes in the door can thrive and that any structure implicit or explicit that gets in the way of that needs to be, needs to be torn down.Jeff Hunter:Great. Okay. So now let's go the next step because I think this is where a lot of leaders, where I as a leader and where, and the leaders I coach, it's a struggle, it's something to work through. So you want a place where people can thrive. And I believe in order for people to thrive, they need to have a sense of safety. They need to have a sense of, and this word is thrown around a lot now, psychological safety, two words thrown around a lot. Creating psychological safety and that people who don't feel psychologically safe, actually, aren't going to thrive. They're going to be defensive. They're going to hide their talents because they're going to be in a constant state of trying to protect themselves against what's happening around them. And, but you said earlier, and I agree with you that something that's incredibly important in the coaching relationship and for people to find their potential, is a discomfort, is not being comfortable. It's to be in a place of exploring, which is always inherently at the edge of comfort or beyond comfort. When you're thinking about creating a place where people can thrive but the part of thriving is exploring things that are uncomfortable. How do you square that circle? How do you set up a place where you can get both of those through the mechanism of safety? Jim Wagner:I'm thinking through the question and I think that as I think of an organization and I think of a framework, guardrails, around the environment as opposed to edicts. So there are unbreakables and negotiables that are, that were within this context we're talking about, right? So there are lots of situations that are very clear cut that would make somebody feel unsafe or uncomfortable in an environment. Those have to be, those are non negotiable. They can't exist, right? I think we're on the same page there. I think that it's about dialogue blogging. It's about having the ability to have those conversations across the organization, to get an understanding of why somebody is feeling uncomfortable. Why is somebody feeling the way that they're feeling as opposed to dismissing the way that they're feeling and then seeking to arrive at an understanding from which we can all move forward. I think that it's, and it's not easy and even the context of this conversation, which is interesting. And I think it's why some leaders don't address it, is because it actually makes them feel uncomfortable, right? So you have somebody who is feeling discomfort in a certain situation or discomfort with the environment, but people won't have the conversation because of their own discomfort of what may be discovered. And that is a challenge. I think that goes back to some of the words that we've used previously, which is it's a practice and it's a culture of best effort, which is every day, we're all doing our best to move forward and to be in a space where everyone can thrive and everyone can can achieve their potential, which I think I'm completely aligned with Talentisms ideals of that is just unlocking human potential is critically important to me. And one phrase that I've often used is anybody, my goal and it's, again, a practice, is if you come into an organization that I'm fortunate to be leading you'll be more marketable the day that you leave than the day you arrive. That's a commitment that we need to make. And I think that, do we always get it right? No, but if we start from that place, we're going to get it right a lot more than we're going to get it wrong. But I think at the core it's facing our own discomfort with having these uncomfortable conversations and trying to learn from them and move the organization forward, as opposed to a historical hierarchical organization. And I think to me, that's what inclusivity is also a big part of, there's the capital I in inclusivity, which should exist, absolutely. And then there's also the lowercase, which is that every day we have to understand what being more inclusive really means.Jeff Hunter:Yeah, I think there's a really interesting facet of this. So I believe that no matter what, whether we believe that hierarchies are good or bad, and of course there are different people with different points of view on that, but businesses are hierarchies. The CEO is the ultimate executive decision maker, or at least should be. And they have ultimate hire fire promote demote authority, and that they create a sense of safety within that, or a sense of threat. And of course, if somebody is under performing their job, no matter how well intentioned people are, and no matter how much feedback has given and help is given, not everybody can be good at every job at every point in their career. And people will struggle and fail. And of course that happens and we should be decent and compassionate as they work through that. But that doesn't mean that compassion doesn't mean that we say, Oh, you're doing a good job when you're not doing a good job again, if the goal is to unleash potential, you need that coaching. You need that feedback loop. But the thing to me that makes this so difficult as a question is we're depending upon the person at the top of the hierarchy, we're depending upon the leader to have a level of personal mastery and insight into self that few possess, because really where the breakdown is in my opinion is, I think it's okay, there are boundaries of law and boundaries of decency and that's the thing that you're saying are non negotiable and I agree with that, but within that, we know there can be a lot of different behaviors, right? There can be behaviors where there are cultures where everybody is rewarded for everything. And there are cultures where it's very difficult to get noticed or rewarded. And there are cultures where you get a lot of very difficult feedback and cultures where you get no feedback, and there's a whole bunch of different behaviors and quality standards and outcomes in every culture. And I don't think it's a bad thing. I think that's a good thing. People can find homes within those cultures and find their own sense of safety and their own sense of unleashing their potential. But too often, what happens is the person who's responsible for setting that culture, because they are the top executive and they have the ultimate hire fire, promote, demote authority actually, doesn't know what they want. And they actually don't know what they're going to reward or what they're going to punish. They like to imagine certain things about themselves. They would like to imagine that they're always fair and decent, but often they aren't. As most of us aren't in our worst situations, we can fail that standard or that aspiration. And so therefore the person who's joining the company can't really have a solid contract with that executive, the contract of like, okay, I'm going to do X, Y, and Z. You're going to do X, Y, and Z. You expect this of me. I expect this of you. We're staying in sync. We're communicating. That's a beautiful relationship, but it's very difficult to do when the leader doesn't have the requisite level of self awareness, self skepticism, self acceptance, personal mastery, to actually be able to articulate those things well, and continuously invest, as you've said in the practice of getting better at that, in getting better at themselves and getting better at, as they are getting better at them themselves, articulating that back into the organization with this deep sense of personal responsibility of saying, I made a mistake. Here's what I learned. Here's what will be different. Because all leaders are just people and people get under threat, and when they get under threat, they hide, they defend. And, but when leaders do it, when managers do that, it has concussive ripple effects throughout an organization that when an individual contributor or somebody who is lower in the hierarchy, does it, it doesn't have that. And I think that's the contextual difference of personal responsibility and solving the problems that are of systemic racism and sexism and gender bias and all the things that lead as leaders we're called to solve. That's what it is the most difficult is for each of us as leaders to summon our best selves, to be the most, have the most self knowledge and most transparency and humility so we can communicate that to others and form a good contract that then I think forms the basis of safety. So that's a long ramble, but that's sort of my perspective on it. Jim Wagner:Yeah, I think that it ties in with what we were speaking about at the beginning of the conversation, as I mentioned around how we have used the word goals or targets as the measuring stick, right? And oftentimes the focus, the relentless focus on achievement of those goals, and usually then a review, did we achieve it or not achieve it is what causes a lot of this, a lot of these challenges within the constant context of managers and employees. As opposed to I think it's incumbent upon the leadership at whatever level of leadership you may be to anybody within your purview, you need to, one needs to be able to articulate what is a successful day, week, month, quarter, year within that job. So I think and it's hard and I can't say that I always achieved it, but objectively again, the practice of being able to articulate to somebody on Friday afternoon, when they turn off their computer shut down, they should under their own guys, regardless of the goal, which again, most goals in companies, revenue goals, targets are completely arbitrary and swags and they don't totally have any idea how it's more driven by what did the investors want? Oh, they want us to grow by 15% a year. Oh, that's now our goal, no relationship to whether it's achievable or how we articulate to the team, what is a successful week? And that goes back to my concept of running a system. If you ran the system, regardless of what it produced, then it was a successful week. Did you run the system well? And if you're not achieving the revenue targets, then we have to ask, how do we change the system or are our revenue targets out of line with what the market will allow in terms of what we're trying to achieve. But oftentimes what we do as managers and as leaders is we blame the individuals for not achieving something that we can't necessarily even articulate how they're going to achieve it. More is not a strategy. And so I think a lot of this discomfort comes around the inability for managers and leaders to fully understand what a successful week for an employee is and it's incumbent upon us to provide that to them. Then this goes to your point about personal responsibility. Whereas if that helps to create the contract that you mentioned. If we now have the contract, then we can ask objectively, not subjectively, did we do the things that we were supposed to do as a team to achieve our goal. But if everybody's left to their own devices, now it becomes a subjective conversation, which brings in lots of fears and insecurities and many other psychological responses that have nothing to do with the work at hand. That's been, that's how I see it. And like I said, this is why I keep using the word practice because we're practicing this, we are constantly working to get better at it. And there are times where we, where we fail at that. There are times where we didn't organize ourselves effectively to be able to articulate to the organization or an individual, what is a successful week for them? What are they supposed to do to then ultimately achieve? And then, but once that is laid out and there's alignment that, yes, I understand this is what we need to do, then you can have that objective feedback loop that we've been talking about because now it's, you know, did you do acts? Yes. Okay. And we still didn't achieve it. So now it's either the system, potentially the individual, potentially market fit, and we can diagnose that challenge.Jeff Hunter:Yeah, yeah. That's awesome. As a matter of fact, it's so awesome. I think that's a great place to end our discussion. Because I think that encapsulates a lot of it. Jim, I am so grateful for your time. I've always loved working with you. I've always been grateful for the opportunity to work with you. And now I'm especially grateful that you can bring some of your wisdom to our audience so thank you so much.Jim Wagner:I have really enjoyed it. Always enjoy talking to you, Jeff. You know that. Thanks Jim. Alright. Take care.Jeff Hunter:Coaching in the Clear has been a production of Talentism. It was recorded, mixed and edited by 46 ad studios, original music by John Hunter. If you found this podcast valuable, please share on social media and make sure to leave a review. To support this podcast please sign up at Talentism.com. There you will find important content and up to date insights about how to unleash your potential. Thank you so much for listening.

Duration: 45 min

Release Date:

Share part or all of the audio of this episode