Hybrid Work and Leading Remote Teams with Gleb Tsipursky

Welcome to Brainfluence, where author and international keynote speaker Roger Dooley has weekly conversations with thought leaders and world class experts. Every episode shows you how to improve your business with advice based on science or data.

Roger’s new book, Friction, is published by McGraw Hill and is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and bookstores everywhere. Dr Robert Cialdini described the book as, “Blinding insight,” and Nobel winner Dr. Richard Claimer said, “Reading Friction will arm any manager with a mental can of WD40.”

To learn more, go to RogerDooley.com/Friction, or just visit the book seller of your choice.

Now, here’s Roger.

Roger Dooley:     Welcome. Brainfluence I’m Roger Dooley. Today’s guest is a repeat visitor with some very timely insights. Gleb Tsipursky is the founder and CEO of Disaster Avoidance Experts and a thought leader in future-proofing and cognitive bias risk management. And we’ve had guests with PhDs and behavioral science on the show any number of times, but Gleb has a PhD in the history of behavioral science. Last time Gleb was on, we discussed his book, Never Go With Your Gut, How Pioneering Leaders Make the Best Decisions and Avoid Business Disasters. His new book is Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams, a Manual on Benchmarking to Best Practices for Competitive Advantage. Welcome to the show, Gleb.

Gleb Tsipursky:   Thank you again for having me back, Roger. It’s a pleasure.

Roger Dooley:     Gleb, our last discussion was in December of 2019 and I went back and actually checked the transcript, since you are the disaster avoidance guy, and nowhere in our conversation did the word pandemic come up, which is funny, because little did either of us know, but perhaps the biggest disaster that has faced us in decades was right around the corner. When did you realize that, Gleb, that this was going to be really a major event worldwide?

Gleb Tsipursky:   I think I realized it, let’s see, around early January of 2020. So I was starting to look at what was happening in Wuhan and information started coming out about this pandemic and that the health system in Wuhan was collapsing. Now, people generally didn’t pay much attention to this stuff because it’s nowhere, China, right now, the disease, but naturally being interested in disasters, I started researching this topic. And I found out that is actually a major city, huge metropolis. It’s called the Chicago of China. It produces over $22 billion in revenue per year, has something like 11 million people living in it, and it has something like 500 international flights per day. So 200 people per flight, 10,000 people going in and out. And this very modern city with a good public health system, its public health system totally collapsed. They had to put chains of people’s doors, nothing that they did in the U.S., in order to manage the situation. So it was really bad and it became clear to me that this pandemic would get out of China and this would be a serious issue.

I started talking to my retainer clients about this topic that, “You really need to start addressing this. You need to change your business continuity plan to not orient toward just two-week interruption, which is the maximum the typical business continuity plan, but for a long-term interruption and for people working from home for a long period of time. And I started writing articles, op eds. I had articles published already in the beginning of March before the declaration of the emergency about the serious need to prepare for this, how businesses weren’t prepared. And it was actually pretty hard to get them published, because editors were not really interested in running them. They were thinking, “Well, this is exaggeration,” but it turned out to be pretty accurate. Had something published in the Business Insider, had something published about this topic in the Columbus Dispatch, something like March 8th or 9th. And so this is something I was watching this pretty close then, helping folks strategically pivot to adapt to the pandemic.

Roger Dooley:     Right. Well, I think that something that I noticed was that companies that were well down the digital transformation path, actually, in some cases, we’re able to prosper during the early stages of the pandemic, simply because their competition wasn’t prepared. We saw that in retail, where some retailers are pretty good. Amazon was impacted certainly, but they recovered very rapidly by adding massive amounts of people to their roster and other smaller chain supermarkets and such really did pretty well in adapting, others, not so much. But how does a business, like a cruise line, deal with something like this or plan for it? I’m pretty sure that the cruise lines did not have something in their plan book about, “Well, what if suddenly shipping shutdown globally and we had zero revenue coming in, plus we had thousands of employees marooned on ships around the world that can’t go home?” Who even plans for that or do they?

Gleb Tsipursky:   That’s a good question. One of the things that you can look at… So the cruise line were one thing. But mostly their not an American business, but let’s look at American business. Let’s look at the airlines. They had huge profits over the period from 2008, 2009 to the beginning of 2020. What did they do with those profits? They give them back in the form of share buybacks to shareholders. So they had very little war chest available. And if the government didn’t help them out, they would have gone bankrupt. That is not the way to prepare for disaster. You need to have a serious war chest for something like this. And pandemic is a preventable disaster and foreseeable disaster. You can foresee that something like a pandemic might occur. This is something that prominent people like Bill Gates and many others were talking about for a while.

So it’s shockingly bad risk management that the airlines all follow the same fundamentally flawed strategy of not building up their war chests in case of an emergency. And instead giving that money back to shareholders. That is a serious problem and there’s a sign of what’s called market failure.

Roger Dooley:     Yeah, I totally agree with that. I brought that up on the show before that it really makes no sense. I suppose, if you asked the CEOs, they would say, “Well, if we have a big pile of cash in our balance sheet, people are going to come in and attempt to either take us over or elect alternate directors to try and get that money distributed and so on.” And also I think there is the tendency of incumbent executives to say, “Wow, we can improve the stock price, if we give out dividends and do share buybacks and such,” which, of course, benefits them personally.

Gleb Tsipursky:   And that’s why I call this a market failure. You have the market, Wall Street, pushing companies to make bad decisions that don’t manage risks effectively. Now, you have, of course, other companies on Wall Street, such as Berkshire Hathaway, which are holding on to a large chunk of money and made very well throughout, because they were holding on to a lot of money and buying up shares, destroyed companies at good lower prices. So clearly risk management is on the side of people who foresee problems, like Warren Buffet versus the CEOs of the airlines, which were all following the same flawed strategy. And that’s why you have this market failure when CEOs are looking at quarterly profit reports and share price instead of the long-term future of the company.

Roger Dooley:     Right. Well, Warren Buffet, wasn’t trying to maximize his 2020 bonus. So it’s a fundamentally different and far better approach to management. Now, Gleb, your new book is about returning to work. It’s really fascinating, the trade-offs. But first I think I should interject that we have a global audience here and the world is in different places right now, as far as returning to work goes. In the U.S.due to a pretty high vaccination rate, we’re closing in on 70%, at least partially vaccinated. Things are largely getting back to normal. Stadiums are open. Theaters are open and people are behaving more or less normally. Not that we’ve completely lifted the pandemic yet, but things are somewhat normal. And also businesses are coming back into the office, at least some of them are, because there’s a perceived far lower risk than there was previously. But in different parts of the world, things are very different.

In Australia, things never really got as bad as they got in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, because they were striving for COVID zero. So, yeah, they had some lockdowns and whatnot, but basically by closing off borders and a lot of testing, they were able to prevent the spread. So they were living normal lives during 2020, unlike many of us. But still other countries are in the midst of relatively serious outbreaks and a lot of risks still. So with that in mind, though, we will accept the fact that everybody will be, sooner or later, returning to the office in some fashion or things will be returning to normal. But we’ve seen this big divide developed where you’ve got some employees saying, “Well, don’t want to go back into the office,” either occasionally for safety reasons, but also because, “Wow. Hey, I find that I can work just as well from my remote office in my home,” that might not even be in the urban center where it was previously. Maybe now it’s near a mountain lake, “And I can be incredibly productive from here.”

But you’ve also got CEOs who are saying, “Okay, no. Hey, it’s time to get back in the office.” In your book, you mention Goldman Sachs CEO who says, “Basically, this is an aberration that we’re going to correct quickly.” Now, that’s a pretty strong statement saying, “Now, this is just an error that we’re going to fix right now.” And I thought almost equally indifferent to the concerns of employees was a Jamie Diamond, who I have a lot of respect for as a CEO, but he said something like, “Yeah, people don’t like commuting. So what.” And this to me is a bit out of touch, but at the same time, they are basically saying that, “This is our culture and maybe our culture isn’t for everybody.” If you’re looking for work-life balance, you probably don’t go to Goldman Sachs to work. That’s that’s not really part of their culture, at least for your first five plus years there. Maybe by the time you were a senior partner, your work-life balance, isn’t so bad.

But in any case, how do you go about addressing these new issues, where you’ve got different attitudes on the part of employees? You’ve got some people who literally can’t do their job remotely and others who can. You’ve got people who want to work from cheap places, but still want to be paid at San Francisco or New York City prices.

Gleb Tsipursky:   That’s an important consideration, how do you manage fairness? And so we can focus on the worker, so can work remotely. I think rather than people who are essential workers who need to be in the office. Doctors and so on, they can’t do their work remotely. They can do some medical visits, but surgeons can’t do their work remotely. Then you have nurses and so on. So talking about people who can do their work remotely, all or most of it remotely. So let’s focus on those folks. And that’s just our 50% of the U.S. economy, because there’s a lot of service in the economy. In other economies that varies, of course, more or less. So thinking about these people, we want to look first what these people want. So set up this divide between Jamie Diamond and his staff. But what does that statistic say? What does the average say?

Looking at statistics, and there were a number of very good surveys done by places like the Harvard Business School, by the Society for Human Resource Management, very huge society, neutral, objective. Not advocating for a new sort of perspective, Microsoft, Slack, huge companies. And they didn’t do only surveys. They also have data. Microsoft has data from Microsoft Team and LinkedIn, Slack has data from Slack. All of this sort of stuff. And they looked at what do employees want their productivity? What is actually going on with employees just to provide a basis for our conversation? And what they find is that overwhelmingly employees do not want to go back to Monday through Friday, nine to five, with Jamie Diamond and other folks like that. So what they’re finding is that about 60% or so, a little bit more or less in various surveys, want a hybrid schedule. Coming into work one to two days a week on average, and doing the rest of their work from home.

Something like about 30%, maybe a little bit more or less, depending on the company and situation want to work full-time remotely. Only something like 10 to 15% want Monday for Friday, nine to five. So that’s the basis from which we’re talking about. We want to know if this is the average. When you’re looking at how much do they care about it? Something like 45% to 50% indicate they’ll look for a new job if they’re not given at least substantial remote work and some full-time remote work. So people really want this. On average, and this is for all people across all statistics. They’re willing to give up 8% of their salary to work their preferred remote schedule. Over 75% say that working remotely gives them more work-life balance, provides stress relief. They hate commutes. That’s their top reason for not going to the workplace.

And they find that they’re quite a bit more productive. And that productivity is backed up by data from Microsoft, teams from Slack about how much people work. People work on average, something like 20 hours more per month if they’re working remotely. That’s 10 to 14%, an average increase in productivity. And it’s not surprising. You don’t have a commute, you have much less going through security, going through the office, just go to your girlfriend in your bedroom to your home office and do your stuff, the morning routine. So that is something that will form the basis from which we’re coming. So people really want to work substantial remote work, employees on average. Whereas managers are much less enthusiastic on average about their employees working remotely. And there are a number of reasons why their managers are less enthusiastic and they’re making decisions based on their lack of enthusiasm.

Interestingly, even large tech companies are making these decisions. So Google, for example, wanted all its employees to go back to the office, all its employees, to go back to the office. And it was talking about this, talking about this from January, February, starting from January, February, 2020 saying, “In a few months, you’ll all go back to the office.” Well, guess what employees started leaving. Top employee, top tech folks started leaving Google, because they didn’t want to go back to the office. They moved elsewhere. They found they can be very productive doing remote work. And Google due to internal employee position and retirements or resignations eventually reversed its decision. On May 5th said, “Okay, you can apply for remote work. We’ll have 20% of our workforce or so working remotely and other folks will have a lot more flexibility.”

So this caused Google many millions of dollars. I can guarantee you that. And I have some inside sources of the company for top people leaving, to replace them, it’s very expensive. And then, of course, morale took a huge hit to this issue because clearly people felt not listened to. And, of course, they had to change their plans around their offices, all of that layout. That cost Google millions of dollars. Now, just a month later, Amazon had the same thing, where it wanted its employees to go back to the office, actually Monday for Friday, nine to five. And due to the same sort of employer resignations and the resistance, it eventually said, “Okay, we’ll give you a lot more flexibility in coming to the office.” Again, many, many millions of dollars. Same thing happened just a week ago with Uber.

Uber had the same thing. “We want the employees to go back to the office Monday through Friday, nine to five.” Well due to employer opposition resistance, resignations, it said that, “Okay, we’ll allow you to work much more flexibly.” And Apple also wants its employees to go back to the office. And it’s also facing serious internal opposition and the resignations. And so it may also change its path. We’ll see what happens with Jamie Diamond and co, but clearly companies are making some really bad decisions. Managers are making some top leaders, these are trillion dollar companies. They’re the biggest companies in the world. Amazon is the biggest company in the world. Google is closely follows and Uber is not as big, but Apple is very, pretty much up there as well. Horrible decision-making, costing them many, many millions of dollars, many millions, and even more in reputation and employee morale and productivity. Why are they making these bad decisions. Well, that’s due to the dangerous judgment errors that they make. And we’ll talk about that soon. I just want to pause myself and give you a chance to ask questions.

Roger Dooley:     Actually, you set me up for my next comment, Gleb, which was what are some of the cognitive biases that drive these decisions? And I guess the other thing I would add is that from the data that you’re providing and the examples of big companies like Google and Amazon and so on, it would really behoove any manager now, particularly those that have not yet tried to force their employees back into the office, to take this into account in their own decision-making and say, “Okay, if it’s not working for these big companies that are some of the more desirable places to work on the planet, how are my employees going to feel about it. In your book, you make the point that these decisions about forcing people back into the office are often due to cognitive biases bases on part of the managers involved. What are some of those biases?

Gleb Tsipursky:   Just before getting to that, I want to talk about some middle market companies. I gave a webinar for Vistage, which is a peer executive organization for middle market companies, because many thousands of middle market companies, it’s these CEOs and leaders. And they took some surveys of all of their leaders. They found that less than half actually did surveys of their employees to ask their employees for their preferences in going back to the office. So clearly middle market, that’s ridiculous, to be honest. If you’re not doing surveys of your employees, you’re deliberately leaving yourself blind. What they’re mostly doing is talking to the other C-suite officers and checking on senior VPs and checking for their information and opinions. So clearly leaders at the middle market companies are making some bad, bad decisions as well. And this has to do with-

Roger Dooley:     Well. Let me interrupt you there for just a second. Being the neuro-marketing guy, I guess I could push back and say, “Well, people aren’t going to tell you what they really think on surveys because they are driven by their own biases and unconscious motivations. And then the other thing is, depending on how you structure that survey, if you say, “Okay, would you prefer to come back to work five days a week in the office? Or would you like the option of working from home for part-time?” Who is not going to say, “No, I want to work from home part-time,” or at least have that option. So I wonder how much managers can rely on the surveys. Or if you, going back to Jamie Diamond, he probably saw those same surveys and said, “Well, yeah, of course people don’t like to commute, but so what, we want him back in the office and they’re welcome to find a job someplace else if they don’t want to come back in,

Gleb Tsipursky:   I hear you. And that’s fair from the perspective of not wanting to hear from your employees, but that’s a very big problem. If you then have to end up reversing your decisions as happened with Uber, Amazon, Google, you don’t want to be in that position. They lost millions and millions of dollars, smaller companies will hundreds of thousands, middle market companies, small businesses will lose thousands and thousands. Small business that has 10 employees. And if they’re trying to force those back to the office, if three of those employees leave, you’ll have 30% turnover. That’s pretty horrible for you. So you don’t want to be in that position. That’s one. Second, I worked with 12 companies to help them transition to back to the office, have a strategic plan. And I had them all do surveys. Employees were pretty transparent. We did have number of people say they want to go back to the office full time, something ranging on various surveys from 10 to 20%, depending on the company. Then you had something like 30 to one survey showed 60% of people wanting to work remotely, fully time remotely.

And then most people, something in the 60% like 70% range wanted part-time work one to two hours per week. So you definitely have surveys that are clearly giving information. As long as you structure them appropriately and anonymously, you are getting good data from those surveys and that’s representative of what employees want and employers, like you said, sometimes just not want to hear from their employees. They want to go to the information that they prefer to hear. So they go to their managers, to fellow supervisors, leaders, and they say, “Well, this is what we want to do. And our employees we’ll take it, they’ll tolerate. Maybe they don’t like it, but they’ll be okay with it. They’ll tolerate it.

And next speaks to a cognitive bias called the false consensus effect. The false consensus effect relates to how we perceive other people. Cognitive biases, by the way, or the dangerous judgment errors we make because of how our mind is wired, due to our evolutionary heritage. We grew up or we evolved for an environment in which we lived in tribes and, well, in the Savannah environment as hunters, gatherers. So we had to have the very strong fight or flight response and very strong tribalism. The false consensus effect that relates to tribalism. We feel that other people in our tribe hold pretty similar beliefs to us. And so the big leaders that Uber, Amazon, Google felt that their employees were similar enough to them that they could judge their employees reactions based on their own reactions. Clearly, that was a wrong, very wrong. And many middle market companies, many small businesses will make the same sorts of mistakes. I can guarantee that to you and they will make bad mistakes and they will lose a lot of money and they can afford to lose much less than a Google, or an Amazon, or an Uber.

So that’s one cognitive bias. Another cognitive bias has to do with experience of managers. They became successful in office work through in-office spending their time and they were leaders. They’ve progressed for their careers. They have 30 to 40 years of in-office experience. They feel comfortable, overwhelmingly comfortable within office work. They feel uncomfortable overwhelmingly with working from home. They also don’t see their employees working and that feels bad for them. They feel they don’t have accountability and oversight and they feel that they’re not surrounded by their employees. And these are pretty social people, gregarious people, the people who tend to become leaders. And so they are uncomfortable. They’re extroverted. So there’s personal discomfort relates to cognitive bias called the status quo bias, where we want to maintain a status quo. This current situation, or get back to it. And the status quo for these leaders is work in the office.

They feel that that’s wrong. They’re uncomfortable with not working in the office. And so they try to force their employees back into the office just because they want that personal comfort, rather than looking at the bottom line for their companies. Clearly, Uber, Amazon, and Google had a throng and many other companies will make bad mistakes similar to that. And even not getting the information, not running the survey speaks to a cognitive bias called the confirmation bias, where we tend to look for information that confirms our beliefs and not. If we look for information, that no information that contradicts our beliefs. And, finally, these leaders have a certain perception of what it means to work remotely. There were major transitions in March, 2020, the log lockdowns. This fast transition resulted in them transposing in-office culture, but remote work. This is obviously not the optimal way to work remotely.

You need to create structures and systems optimized the remote work, but they try to work remotely using their in-office culture. And that’s what relates to cognitive bias called functional fixedness, where we tend to perceive that there’s one way, right way of doing things. One right set of systems and processes, and not adapted to a new situation. It’s like the hammer tool idea that whenever you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So when you have an office culture, everything looks like that. And now they see a well remote work is bad, but because their approaching it wrong, then they’re doing it wrong.

Roger Dooley:     One change that I think will be occurring, is offices are going to be redesigned, assuming that some of the people will be remote some of the time, at least. Maybe some people will be remote all the time, but probably in most offices, there’ll be some a hybrid approach. And I’m wondering if there’s going to be a tension in office design, because what you’re going to want to do is encourage collaboration during those in-office times. But also I’ve seen articles that suggest that the open office is dead. People are going to have more barriers, more private offices, more separation in order to make people feel safe. And so you’ve got on the one hand, you’re trying to increase the collaboration, but at the same time, there’s this other dynamic that says, “Well, maybe we should keep people farther apart.” How do you see that playing out?

Gleb Tsipursky:   So I already helped Fortune companies transition back to the office. Overwhelmingly my recommendation for companies is to do hybrid, mainly hybrid. Most people succeed most in the hybrid environment where they do their individual work better at home and their collaborative work better in the office. Some people can be successful, full-time remotely. And I encourage folks to allow these employees to work full-time remotely, but that’s a minority, maybe 10 to 30% of your workforce. Large majority is going to be hybrid coming in one to two to three days a week. These companies, they, definitely, we talk to them, encourage them and they do transition their office. And the way they transition the office is, first of all, they determine requirements. Now, the best way for decision-making around returning to the office is to let lower-level team leaders make the decision on what’s going on for their team, while allowing those employees who can succeed in working remotely to work full-time remotely.

Then you know what your capacity will be. Let’s say people on average will be coming in two days a week. Now, you need some basic office space for your various financial functions and so on, administrative. So maybe 20% of your office space you need. But if you have people coming in 22 days a week and you have 80% of your office space dedicated to occupancy, then you maybe only need 50% of the space that you had before the pandemic. And you can cut down your office space. That’s a great savings. So companies are finding they’re saving a lot of money by cutting office space and office-based services and products, janitor, security, and so on, large commercial printers. So that’s one step of redesigning your office.

Then the second step is overwhelmingly changing it for collaboration. You’re going to shift it from individual cubicles to open office designs with hot desking. Or not necessarily open office designs, but hot desk in your various sorts. Some offices, it depends on whether they’re allowing unvaccinated people to come in. The most of the companies with which I’m working are only asking vaccinated people to come to the office. So it’s pretty safe. Everyone’s pretty safe and they’re mostly keeping an open office arrangement for hot-desking activities. There’s nobody, except leaders, who need private spaces for conversations have closed offices or cubicles. The large majority of the office space, something like two thirds, is dedicated to collaboration. Because that’s what people overwhelmingly do when they come to the office. That’s why they’re coming to the office. Why come to the office, except if you’re doing collaboration? People tend to be much more productive at home or their individual tasks.

So for collaboration, you need things like conference rooms with high-quality video technology for people who are coming in remotely. So those hybrid meetings. And you need informal collaboration spaces, like lounges and so on, for those more casual, spontaneous collaborations. So that’s the redesign of the offices that’s happening very much in the companies that I helped and that I’m seeing in other companies as well. So I know I’ve worked with some architectural firms where we help refer clients to each other that are seeing the same trend in other companies that are changing their offices.

Roger Dooley:     Are there any good ways of improving that remote presence, where you’ve got one or more say attendees in a meeting who are remote and everybody else is in-person. And we’ve seen some of these sort of robots with the iPad faces and such on there, but I’m curious whether you’ve seen anything new that really seems to be effective.

Gleb Tsipursky:   Well, it’s all things that seem to be effective. Namely, making sure to pay attention to this person and making sure to call on them deliberately. Now, what happens is that these people tend to be left out of conversations. So the team leader as a facilitator needs to be trained. So this is about training. Training the lower-level supervisors on effective virtual team meeting facilitation and then general virtual collaboration. They need to be trained on how to facilitate hybrid meetings effectively. That means paying quite a bit more attention to the people who are in their own virtually. You don’t need space dogs with faces, those robots. That’s not necessary. It’s a human thing. It’s attention. These people need to be attended to. So paying attention to them, focus on them, calling them throughout the discussion, weigh their opinion heavily, and make sure that they’re fully represented in the discussion. That’s a matter of facilitation.

So training for facilitation needs to be part of adapting to the new hybrid office culture that will be the main office culture going forward. We’re seeing that, overwhelmingly, what companies are doing right now is what they intend to do going forward. And most companies are choosing some kind of hybrid arrangement.

Roger Dooley:     Before we wrap up, Gleb, I’m curious about your time spent studying the history of behavioral science. How did you happen to choose that field? I don’t think that behavioral science historian is a common entry in the career guide book. Also, well, yeah, we think of behavioral science as a relatively recent thing. How far back does one trace its roots? But first, how did he end up in that field?

Gleb Tsipursky:   Well, what I ended up in the field, so what history of behavioral science involves is looking at historical situations and contemporary situations, if you’re looking at contemporary history, and then applying behavioral science methods to analyzing it. So looking, for example, for cognitive biases in the decision-making of leaders, looking at where the biasing might’ve been helpful, where some of the methods that people use are already addressing some of the cognitive biases. So looking at the history of how cognitive biases, how decision-making happened in historical settings. And so that’s what fascinated me. I was always interested in history and I was always interested in decision-making. So I brought my two loves together and looked at how people are making decisions in historical and contemporary settings. In fact, my dissertation looked at young people and decision-making in the Soviet Union and in the United States, in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, looking at their cultural, leisure activities and decision-making around government policy toward those sorts of issues. So that’s the key. You look at these issues in historical and contemporary science.

Roger Dooley:     So really sort of a history major through a behavioral science lens, I guess. Yeah. That’s really fascinating. That will have to be the topic for another conversation, Gleb, because I’m sure we could have a lot of fun with that too. Gleb, how can people find you and your ideas online?

Gleb Tsipursky:   Well, first they can find the book Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams, a Manual on Benchmarking to Best Practices for Competitive Advantage on Amazon. That’s the easiest place that folks will find a digital hard copy. So check that out. My own resources are going to be a disasteravoidanceexperts.com. Blogs, videos, podcasts, online classes, books, of course, decision-making guides, manuals, coaching, consulting, training services. And check out a free course on Making the Wisest decisions. It’s eight video-based modules with an assessment on cognitive biases as part of the first module, the Assessment and Dangerous Judgment Errors in the Workplace. Check that out. Disasteravoidanceexperts.com/subscribe. Again, disasteravoidanceexperts.com/subscribe.

Roger Dooley:     Great. Well, we will link there and to any other resources we mentioned on the show notes page at rogerdooley.com/podcast, where we will have audio, video and text versions of this conversation. Gleb, thanks for coming back on the show.

Gleb Tsipursky:   Really appreciate you inviting me, Roger. Thank you very much.

Thank you for tuning into this episode of Brainfluence. To find more episodes like this one, and to access all of Roger’s online writing and resources, the best starting point is RogerDooley.com.

And remember, Roger’s new book, Friction, is now available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and book sellers everywhere. Bestselling author Dan Pink calls it, “An important read,” and Wharton Professor Dr. Joana Berger said, “You’ll understand Friction’s power and how to harness it.”

For more information or for links to Amazon and other sellers, go to RogerDooley.com/Friction.