The Quiet Warrior Podcast with Serena Low

110. Imposter Syndrome, Trust, & the Theory of Constraints: A Guide for Introverted Leaders (Simon Copsey)

• Serena Low, Introvert Coach for Quiet Achievers and Quiet Warriors

Share episode

In this episode of The Quiet Warrior Podcast, Serena interviews Simon Copsey, a delivery and transformation consultant who helps organisations solve complex problems through scientific thinking and modern management theory.

Simon shares his journey from software developer to consultant and opens up about experiencing imposter syndrome when stepping into advisory and leadership roles. Together, they explore how introverts and quiet achievers can thrive in consulting environments that require communication, relationship-building, and collaboration across different personalities and levels of seniority.

A central theme of the conversation is the Theory of Constraints, a practical framework for clarifying organisational goals, identifying obstacles, and making assumptions visible so teams can work together more effectively.

This episode highlights the importance of trust, curiosity, and understanding different perspectives at work — especially for introverted professionals who prefer thoughtful, reflective approaches to problem-solving.


Key message:

People are good. They act for a reason. And curiosity creates connection, clarity, and influence.

As Simon says:
“Be curious before furious.”


Connect with Simon Copsey:

Landing page: https://curiouscoffee.club/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/simoncopsey/

For insights that light up your career and relationships without forcing you to change who you are:

Subscribe to The Visible Introvert newsletter: https://serenalow.com.au

Help more introverts find The Quiet Warrior Podcast by rating and writing a review:

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-quiet-warrior-podcast-with-serena-low/id1635834564

Thank you for your support!




This episode was edited by Aura House Productions

SPEAKER_00:

Hi, I'm Serena Dove. If you're used to hearing that introverts are shy, anxious, anti-social, and lack of good communication and leadership skills, then this podcast is for you. You're about to fall in love with a calm, introspective, and profound person that you are. Discover what's fun, unique, and powerful about being an introvert and how to make the elegant transition from quiet achiever to quiet warrior in your life at work anytime you want, in more ways than you imagined possible. Welcome. Hello and welcome. Today's guest on the Quiet Warrior podcast is Simon Coffee. Simon is a delivery and transformation consultant to senior leaders, helping them unwind complex obstacles in weeks, not years. So happy staff can deliver better software to customers. Welcome, Simon Copsey, to the Quiet Warrior Podcast.

SPEAKER_01:

Thank you for having me, Serena. Lovely to be with you.

SPEAKER_00:

Thank you. Tell us a little bit about your background and what you currently do.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, sure. So I was a software developer, I think still recovering from that. But I kind of quickly got more interested in what's happening behind the screen rather than on the screen. So I entered the deep dark world of consulting and found that often the things that get in the way of our staff aren't what we think they are. They're not things coming from outside the organization. It's not that our staff aren't skilled enough. The only things often getting in the way of our staff and our company getting to where we most want it to be is um is things that run a little bit deeper, things that are a bit hidden, but all to do with how we manage and how we set policies that just get in the way of staff. So a long-winded way of saying a lot of the time organizations get in their own way uh without realizing it. And that's the thing I find really interesting, uncovering that and helping remove that so happier staff can deliver better things faster, as you put it.

SPEAKER_00:

You mentioned the consulting industry. So for people who are not familiar, what's what is it about the consulting industry that's unique? And how does being an introvert or a quiet achiever, how does that work in the consulting industry?

SPEAKER_01:

That's a good question. So I consulting is really, I don't know about use for it, but I find it really hard to define because it does so many things. I think that the the umbrella, I guess, the what's in common about whatever consultants do is that they're helping others. Um but that can come in many different ways. It can come from hide skills, uh, where a person who's approaching a consultant, they know what the problem is, they're pretty confident with that, they know what the solution is, and they just need some extra help, people with the knowledge. And then there's the other side, which I guess is more kind of advisory, where they don't know what the problem is, they don't know what the solution is, they just want some people to come in and try and help them get to the bottom of things. Um, I guess you'd call that advisory. Um, I guess what's unique about it is, I mean, if we just compare it to the other side of my career as a developer, I could pretty much sit at my desk uninterrupted as long as I understood the problem. Yeah, I would need to talk to people uh to kind of understand what is the problem that we're trying to solve, but most of the time I could sit there and solve a problem somewhat in isolation, be me versus the machine, right? Whereas with cons uh with especially advisory consulting, I guess it's not your problem, it's someone else's problem. And so you need to go in and often they don't understand it as much as they'd like to. So a lot of it's about interacting with other people and trying to understand the different um the different parts of a complex problem, the different pieces of the puzzle. And that involves a lot of being in front of people and asking questions and uh uh a lot of I guess uh opportunity for imposter syndrome to arise because you're meeting these people for the first time, you're not sure what they'll think of you, you don't know whether they'll trust you, and you really want them to trust you because otherwise they won't share the things that are important to help you solve the problem. Um, yeah, what comes up for you there, Serena? Did I answer the question around um uh did that picture of consulting make sense and the that that maybe how it leads to anxiety?

SPEAKER_00:

Like how you think about it. Yes, I can think of a lot of introverts and quiet achievers who are data-driven professionals. So as long as they're within the realm of their own competence, like you say, sitting at your own desk, it's a man versus machine, you would solve the problem and then you go home. You do you can sort of minimize the amount of talking you do. But with consulting, you are there to not only solve the problem, but also identify and articulate the problem. And you would be working across the different stakeholders, you would be talking to different, you know, people at different levels of the hierarchy, right? Is that correct?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah, no, I think you put it really well. Um, and I I think also what you highlighted in my mind is it's not an either or I'm I'm kind of almost turning a dichotomy, and I need to be careful not to, because I realize everyone talks to everyone all the time, and it's very important for developers, you know, that you know, I don't want to uh uh exaggerate the image of uh you know someone sitting in the basement working in the dark, because that's not what developers really do, but you know, I guess that's probably how I work. Um and so for me it was a transition uh where, as you say, we're talking to people at different levels who uh communicate in different ways with different language, uh, you know, from finance to uh technology uh to human resources um and have different personality types. Um and and so it was it for me, it was like encountering this full range of uh of uh the full spectrum and full range of uh communication styles and trying to work out how do I navigate that and get to the information I need to help them. So, yes, just wanted to make sure I didn't mislead or misrepresent people.

SPEAKER_00:

Yes, and that leads naturally to the next question. How did you deal with the imposter syndrome?

SPEAKER_01:

I don't think we ever deal. I mean, you know better than me, Serena. I think, but I don't think we ever do deal with it fully. You know, it's something that we um recognize and manage. Um but I but I think um for me, I mean, it moving to consulting was was a step for me because I never really when I became a consultant, there was no formal training or anything like that. It was um so really, I wasn't really a consultant, I was an ex-developer, and I was trying to find how to become a consultant. And so that in itself places a bit of anxiety in anyone switching to uh discipline is gonna feel a bit of anxiety. Um, so so it's quite natural. But I think one of the things that helped me, it seems really obvious in hindsight, and I'm sure a lot of people get there much more quickly than me, is for me, um imposter syndrome is um not being able to internalize your own successes, but maybe also amplifying failures and maybe actually playing them up where they don't exist. And so what was happening for me was um I'd be sitting in a meeting or a presentation, or I'd even be doing the talking. And at the same time, my mind would be trying to simulate or imagine the thoughts of other people, saying, Oh, you just missed a word, they're not going to understand what you're saying. You're not making any sense, you're not coherent. Why would these people believe you? And all these questions just be running in the background in my head continuously whilst I was trying to speak, and then I'd lose my words because I've got this parallel thread in my head, and it would just be like a downward spiral. I'd be like, Simon, you're not good at this, why are you doing it? Um, but it took me a really weirdly long amount of time to realize that voice was me talking to myself, it wasn't other people, and it didn't necessarily represent what they thought, and a lot of the time it didn't. Yeah, I'm sure you know people would think Simon is a bit weird sometimes, uh, of course, you know, saying perfect, but but my brain was really overrating it. But understanding that the dragons were within my head really helped me. That was the first thing. Um, that it was me doing this to myself. Um, and I think the second thing was just uh um starting to find um growing more confident in the ability to ask better questions as a consultant, knowing where to start. I think that helped as well, and that naturally improved my confidence. Both those things didn't resolve imposter syndrome, of course, but it helped me maybe um settle it. Um how about you, Serena? Was it a similar journey for you?

SPEAKER_00:

I don't know that um I have completely dissociated from the dragons as well. I like to think of it as maybe it's uh it's another way of looking at someone who cares too much as a you feel like an imposter because you realize that you are consciously incompetent at the start, anyway. When you're lacking the knowledge, you're lacking the expertise or the data that you want or that you believe you should have. And so you you're coming very conscious of deficit, a skills deficit. And you're trying very hard to get to a better place so that you can offer more value, you know, deliver a better service. So it's coming from a good place. So I'm curious as to where this inner voice comes from. What's what's the root cause or what's the origin of this dragon that you mentioned?

SPEAKER_01:

No, I appreciate that. I uh and just going back to your point, I think you put it very well. Although I would love it to be a pull rather than a push, rather than a push from anxiety, I'd love it to be a pull from kind of curiosity and excitement, and go, oh wow, this is a new domain, so much to learn. Um, because that would feel like it would uh help us uh with all of us with imposter syndrome feel a little bit more uh at the positive edge of it. Um I don't know what the root cause was. I think um I never really experienced a I think I've always had some form of um, I think I've always had some form of how to put it. Um I guess imposter syndrome is about um your feeling of value, I guess. Your um so I think I've always had that. Um there's always been uh bubbles around that in my life. But I think um it was a change in career that really kind of brought it to the workplace, that really kind of um um made me question my um capability in what I did. Up until that point, I think I've been quite fortunate and not encountered it, but suddenly moving discipline um kind of removed any of those foundations that I had to quiet and the dragons uh and it woke up somewhere, somewhere new. Um but I I'm no I'm no expert. Uh that that's just my my personal experience, me trying to uh add a narrative to what I've what I've experienced to draw a sense. Um how about how about you, Serena? Have you seen similar patterns?

SPEAKER_00:

I'm thinking that maybe it's not a bad thing. You know, we talk about imposter syndrome like it's it's such a negative. But what if it's just an expression of this is where I currently am at? That I'm not as competent as I would like to be, and I'm very conscious of it, that there are other people who know more than I do, they have more experience than I am, and I'm not there yet. Therefore, I feel like an imposter next to them. But at the same time, we are growing and evolving all the time. And those of us who are lifelong learners were very confident with ourselves, particularly the wider people. So you know, we we really do try very hard and we have high standards for ourselves. And sometimes we take it a bit farther, we are perfect to think about things. But it's also coming from that place of I care enough to want to get good at this thing so that I can deliver value to my customer, my client, or you know, my community. And so I am trying, and so I'm conscious of that. I'm not there yet, therefore I'm I'm working at it. And so, you know, that maybe the imposter syndrome is just a recognition of a temporary phase we're going through. And we know that we will get better at it if we keep at it. So it's not necessarily a negative. What do you think?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, yeah. I don't disagree with that. I do wish it was uh the feeling I think um I think if the drive comes with less of that anxiety edge, more of the kind of curiosity and kind of wonder edge, then I think um, or if we're able to uh our bodies permit us to feel that way, that'd be that'd be lovely. Um the last thing I want people to experience is the anxiety, the worry, the concern, the feeling of self-defeat or lack of self-worth. Um, you know, that that's unnecessary, unhelpful, and can take us further away from kind of exploring what's around us. But uh if we're able to take it in a way, you say, then uh, you know, where we see is uh oh, there's more to be learned here. Uh yeah, I absolutely agree with that. But you know, all I know is I know nothing. We'll never know that everything about the world is too complex. There's always more to be learnt, and that's scary, but also wonderful. It'll be a very boring world if we knew everything.

SPEAKER_00:

Yes, and I think in a way that not knowing and not being competent yet also keeps us humble, it keeps us uh grounded in reality.

SPEAKER_04:

And so I think that's a good thing. I think so.

SPEAKER_01:

I think that's what um helps us understand others. Um if we're not if we if we believe we know everything, even if we don't, um then yeah, as you say, it leads us left away from curiosity, away from understanding, away to uh away from uh the desire, the patience to uh understand others other points of views. Um believing that our point of view is uh a superset uh you know more uh more full and that's not helpful. So yeah, yeah, that feels good.

SPEAKER_00:

And that actually ties in nicely with what you do as a consultant, because all those qualities you just mentioned, that curiosity, that openness, the ability to listen to other people's points of view, even especially when they conflict with your own beliefs or your own way of doing things, that openness that then builds trust in REPL, those are all the qualities you need to be a good consultant, isn't it?

SPEAKER_01:

Um I'm still learning, but I I think I think those are all qualities that are helpful, particularly as you say, like um uh if we're coming in to solve a problem the client hasn't yet solved themselves and maybe doesn't fully understand themselves, then it means that it's not something that you can understand from any one viewpoint, otherwise they would have solved it by now. Um, and that means in order to try and understand it, you need to put together different viewpoints. No one viewpoint is sufficient, each viewpoint, uh each kind of piece of understanding is part of the whole. And that means you need to join them together, recognize that um yeah, that that there's more than just one viewpoint that's necessary to get to an understanding of the problem. And even then it will be it won't be it won't be quite right, uh and if they won't quite fit together. And if when they don't quite fit together, it feels like conflicts, but really they're just different views of reality, and that's okay. So, yes, so everything you said, yes, um, it's going to happen if if if if a client's coming to us because they don't yet understand a problem, it's too big, too unwieldy, different pieces in different minds. We need to stick them together, which means we're going to have conflicts about what's true, what's not. And that's great. That's just about building a clear understanding so we can move forward together. Um, so yeah, you worded it really well. I feel that is for particularly more complex uh problems necessary.

SPEAKER_00:

You mentioned different viewpoints, but I'm also thinking you would also work with different personalities. And because you and I are more on the introverted side of the spectrum, what has it been what has it been like for you working in the consulting industry with your more extroverted colleagues?

SPEAKER_01:

Um bittersweet. Um bitter initially and sweet afterwards. Um and and to be clear, uh, you know, I I say that with um a sense of you know uh I guess uh yeah, I'm being a bit maybe uh a bit callous. I I meant that with a sense of humor. The reason I say it that way is initially, as as as I think we all know, when when when we encounter people with a different approach, it's quite easy to feel um uh it's more easy to not get along. And so when I'm working with extra extroverted uh consultants, for example, previously, I'd always go, they're just running into problems, they're not they're they're running towards solutions, they're not taking the time to understand problems. We need to go slower, we need to ask questions, we need to take our time, make sure we know what's going on. Um and uh that that's my view of it, but that's my mental model of extroversia, it's not necessary, correct. That's just how I view it. Um and they'd be like, hey, well, Sam, why are you going so slow? No, it's really clear, it's really obvious. We just, you know, we just this this is what we need to do. Let's just get started. Why why are you why are you dragging your feet? It's obvious. Um, and so that that would um and so you know, we'd always want to work at different speeds, and uh that's happened a few times, and that would initially frustrate me, it would frustrate them. Neither of us are getting what we need in terms of uh colleagues, in terms of partnership, and we both were really frustrated, often for weeks. Um, but the thing is that we what we're both trying to do is we're both trying to work towards solving the same problem together, and we both want to do a good job. It's just we have different approaches. There's no bad people, uh neither of us are bad, we're just different approaches. We've been um acclimatized to solving problems in different ways and getting success from that. And what so so initially that's that was the bitter that was the bit, you know, we have to get through that. But what it leads to is that that sweetness afterwards, which is there's weeks of uh that frustration of trying to understand what how we work and the benefits of us. Yeah, there's there's weeks of uh feeling that friction, that frustration. But very quickly, what I started to see during those first few weeks is what those guys are really good at doing. They're really good at going into rooms, reading the situation, understanding the people quickly, building a rapport, getting to know them, putting people at ease, um, getting talking, getting you know the conversation flowing, which then surfaced the things that I needed to hear to know where to start asking questions. So they were really good at getting things started. And then they gave me time to think, gave me time to listen and come in with questions later. Then they'd listen to those uh and say, Oh, okay, yeah, let's adapt our approach. And so the the first few weeks were really hard because we weren't acting in a way that supported each other. But what we were able to do was observe each other to see how can we act in the future to support each other and how can we put our uh different approaches uh to best use. And so after a few weeks, uh things just worked really well. We're able to uh kind of almost be yin and yin and yangs, um, you know, and be um if it was two introverts or two extroverts, I think we'd do a pretty bad job. Whereas together I think it worked well. So, yes, along with a way of saying I think we worked really well together because during the first few weeks, although it felt very difficult, we were observing each other, seeing where we excelled and how we like to solve problems and the benefits it offered to the situation. So then we could then actually bring those together um later on. Um yeah, you made me think that. Sorry, that was a very long answer.

SPEAKER_00:

What came up for you? That's that's really good. Um what I'm hearing is give it time because when you have a different personality, you need to make that adjustment. And it's not easy to do it mentally because there's that element of do I trust this person? Can I work with this person, or do they have the same goal as I do? So there has to be that uh, I guess, uh humility as well, and openness and empathy, and just a willingness to listen to a different point of view and uh maybe compromise in a few areas, but always having that um ultimate goal, which is the same outcome, that common outcome that you're working towards, which is for the benefit of the client and the organization. So I think when you're guided by that, then you you start and also recognizing that each of you have got your own strengths. And when you come from that perspective, I think you quickly discover how you complement each other and why uh you are working together as a team. And it's actually a really good thing for everyone because you've got something they don't and they've got something you don't, and so on. So yes, I really appreciate that.

SPEAKER_01:

I think you put that very you put that very simple, yes. Thank you, Tree. And trust is an important thing that we can talk about, yes, absolutely. And um people are good, yes, yes.

SPEAKER_00:

What are some of the things that undermine trust? Or what are some things we are not taught as managers and leaders?

SPEAKER_01:

Um so I guess trust is the ability to predict others, and um I think oh sorry, that's the two very good questions there about and I think that we're very connected also, could themselves lead to very interesting answers. So I think trust is interesting because um often as managers, one thing I hadn't appreciated was the purpose of a goal. Um often what we do as managers is we um or managers and managers, we give each manager their own goal and say, okay, if you're looking after this team, we want to make sure that team does really, really well. Here's your goal for that team. Hey, you are behaving, uh, here's your team, here's your goal. We want that team to do really well to get them running towards that goal. Um, so if they're lucky, each team gets one goal, maybe they have several, but uh, let's say that they're in a good situation, you need to have one goal. But what we neglect and what we're not taught often as managers is that um organizations generally consist of teams that need to work together to achieve an outcome. That's why we have organizations, that's why we have teams. Um, that's what that's why we're together in the first place. And organizations trying to achieve something that no one person or often one team can achieve in isolation. Um, so by giving each team a different goal. Goal, we incentivize them to optimize for that. But if they're all trying to satisfy their individual goals and they need to work together to actually help the organization achieve its goal, they generally won't be dancing well together. They generally won't be cooperating. And if they're not cooperating, then how can trust emerge? If trust is the ability to predict the uh behavior of another team or another person, they're not going to trust each other. They're going to say, well, why? I've asked you for help. You're not helping me. And the other people think the same thing. Um, they're not cooperating. If they're not cooperating, cooperating, trust will emerge if trust won't emerge. So I think that's maybe one thing. Um, so like to try, you know, uh the one thing that we're often not taught uh as managers, as um, that relates to trust in particular is we need we need to synchronize teams. We need teams to work at the same time on the uh to the same end. If they don't, um we will the organization won't succeed and staff will be frustrated and conflicting. Um there's probably more we can say that's a very big question. I love it. But before I before I continue, I just want to see what comes up for you and just pause for a second here.

SPEAKER_00:

I think sometimes when when people are put into that managerial role, it's not very clear and I don't mean the KPIs, but but not everyone who is put into that leadership role necessarily has a a sense of what it means to be a good leader. So you raise some interesting points about you know looking after your own team, but then also at the same time having an eye to the the greater the the bigger picture in order to work in, I think, with other teams or the uh organizations for greater good. And that requires not just looking after your own, but also looking after, you know, scanning the environment and you know, seeing what else is happening and how all this is working together. And sometimes quite achievable that can be very detail-oriented and not not quite able to see the uh the bigger picture so well. So I wonder if there are some things we can teach managers, teach leaders to in order for for people to work more in the sync together.

SPEAKER_01:

That's a good one, yeah. Um sorry, your point around um optimizing the team versus optimizing the whole um is and how we can make that practical is a really, really good um suggestion. I ideally uh I'm a bit of a uh I'm a bit harsh on organizations, but I don't I feel that that an organization should make this easy for managers. If a manager has to work out why a team exists and how that fits in the whole organization without any support, I think that's a bit um uh that's an unfair is a strong word, but it's it's not an ideal situation. We can make it easy. Um, so I think um understanding how the team contributes to the whole is is important. So whilst each team should have a goal, those goals should fit together to a super goal, and that super goal, you know, you know, then should fit together to a super goal. So we should all understand um why, and that also helps teams understand a sense of purpose. Why am I here? Why do I exist? You know, then they get that satisfaction of, you know, I'm not just adding a leg to a chair, I'm creating a place for our customers to sit and rest, right? You know, they understand what what their their what their um efforts are leading to. Um and that, you know, we can use um a necessity-based logic for that. We can have a gold tree um where we say this is what we've got our purpose of the whole organization. In order to do that, these are the things we need to do. Um, in order to do that, these are the things we need to do, and this is how you know which team is working where. And that also helps those teams understand how they need to work together and what their purpose is. Um, and in that way, as they optimize, they understand not just what they're optimizing for immediately, but the goal of the goal, what should they be optimizing for? So maybe they can find a better way of fitting. Um, and that that's all coming from theory of constraints, Goldratt and also Dan Heath, you know, people that are smarter than me. Uh if it makes sense. If it doesn't make sense, then it's probably my my doing. Um, so I so I think um understanding the place in the organization is is necessary, but it uh and I think uh uh managers have a role to play in understanding that, but I hope the organization makes it easy for them because it's an organizational question, it's more complex than one person can probably um decipher. Um but if it's not obvious to your point, you know, a practical approach, hmm. I guess um I think one thing to be clear on maybe is um um you know if what makes it very difficult, I don't know about you, but if if if I find I have multiple to-do lists, um it's impossible for me to prioritize. Which which because if I have if I have 10 to-do lists, then 10 things are a priority at once. So where do I start? Where do I end? And it's the same with uh and and also how do I sort those to-do lists if I so I think what was really important any one team is to have a single goal, um, a single method by which we prioritize work, a single um, and then we we can collapse work down into a single list. Um to put it um maybe uh better. When when we're as as a developer, what we often do is we rewrite our code to make it better. And when we rewrite that code to make it better, we we tend to have we can only particularly we can only choose one particular aim of how we rewrite it. What are we trying to optimize for as we rewrite that code? One could be to make it more readable so that the next person comes along, can understand it better and better maintain it. But another goal could be to make it perform better. So when the machine reads it, it runs faster. And typically they take us in opposite directions. But if both are a priority for the developer, if they don't choose between the two, they'll generally make progress against neither goal. Similar, if you try and walk in two directions at once, you'll make no progress. So for an organization, I'm sorry, for an individual team to make progress in a particular direction, it needs to pick a direction. Um, and for that to fit into the organizational direction, we need to know what uh direction the organization is going trying to go in. And that's why I like uh goal tree, which is from the theory of constraints. I'm happy to talk more about it. Um, it allows us to understand not just what is the one thing the team is trying to optimize for, but how that fits into the organization's goal and make sure it's compatible the assumptions fit so that we're not you know trying to jam two things together that shouldn't really be going together. Um, I'm gonna pause because again, you maybe reflect. I appreciate that. I just want to make sure it's taking us where you want to go.

SPEAKER_00:

Well, my next question would be tell us about the theory of constraints, because I think most of us have not heard of it.

SPEAKER_01:

I'd be very happy to. I don't think many people have heard of it, and that the name doesn't do it justice. So the theory of constraints, I think, was created by Ellie Goldwright. And what Ellie Goldwright was a uh physicist, uh, and my understanding was Hughes. Uh he experienced this way of the world feels often feels complex, and the scientific method could be a way of trying to help us understand or just see the simplicity behind that uh inherent complexity. Sorry, the inherent uh simplicity behind the complexity. Um and he wanted to bring that to social science, uh to, for example, organizational change, because it all seemed quite um uh it didn't it didn't seem like there was a strong um scientific approach there. And so the the theory constraints a number of things to it, but one of the uh bits that I find most helpful is the thinking processes, and the thinking processes is how you apply the scientific method to organizations or other social systems. Um first question is a series of five steps, um, all of which you uh there's visual tools, so you can then get other people to uh collaborate with you and to uh um improve um what you have on a piece of paper. Um, because organizations are complex, no one person can see the whole, and if you don't get other people involved, you'll you're not optimizing the organization, you're optimizing what's in your head, what you think the organization is, which is wrong. It's probably uh uh fictitious. So the first step is what's the goal? Um you need to articulate that, use a goal tree. Um so what is uh many organizations, we stopped paper, they say that their goal is to increase profits now in the future. Fine. Um in a capitalist culture, that's generally how it is. Whether it's right or wrong is a value judgment. Um that's great. But in order to do that, then there's a number of necessary conditions to achieve that. Uh so what are they? You need to provide a secure and satisfying workplace. If you don't, your staff will leave and you can't create increased profits in the future. So, what's the point? So there's a number of uh then necessary conditions to get that. But you you you list these out and you have a few layers that at least understand helps you understand what is the goal and what are the necessary conditions to achieve the goal. So you can then know as an organization what is the direction you're trying to go in and what you're optimizing for. The second one is um the current reality tree. What are the key obstacles that are getting in the way of getting us close to the goal and where are they coming from? The third one is the future reality tree. Given we now understand what the key constraints that lie between us, where we are, and the goal, um, what should we do about it? Um and then the fourth one, and then it then it continues. Um there's there's also yeah, there's there's some other key ones there, but those are the the the some of the ones that we we go through. But all the the the thing that's critical in all of those is we're laying out our assumptions. So we're we're doing this visually, we're writing out our assumptions. We don't just say in order to increase profits now in the future, we must do this. We have a because we have a because part of that, and that way we can get other people to scrutinize our assumption, like scientists do um in what in their experiments, they lay out their assumptions because they want their assumptions to be disproven. And so that's what the theory of constraints is trying to do with each of those tools. Whenever you uh create these diagrams, whenever you try and answer these questions, we lay it, it gives you a formula for or a way of laying out your assumptions so they can be disproven because that's what we're trying to do. Um, and if your assumptions are wrong, your solutions will be wrong, your um understanding reality will be wrong. I said a lot there. Was it helpful in some way?

SPEAKER_00:

Yes. I think it was helpful for those of us that have never heard of the theory of constraints. I think particularly the idea of laying out your assumptions so that they can be scrutinized. So that requires a level of transparency and trust. When you are formulating your goals, you would be using that goal tree, you would be laying out all the assumptions for each goal and making sure that they line up with the super goal. And then you're allowing other members to come and scrutinize those assumptions. That takes a lot of trust because some people are not going to feel comfortable having their assumptions scrutinized. Some types of leaders would just want to bypass that kind of discussion and the possibility of having their assumptions questioned.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, no, absolutely. So I think, yeah, and sorry, you played it back really well. So I think the it depends on what level you want to do this. Um, if you're trying to optimize a team in isolation or whether you're trying to optimize a goal or a department, that's the layer, you know, you pick where you have where you want to optimize and you optimize. Ideally, you want to do it uh at a boundary that makes sense. Ideally, you do it across the whole organization. Um, but you start where you are. Um, and so yeah, then you lay out your goal and what is necessary to achieve it, and you get your assumption, you you kind of put your assumptions out there to be scrutinized. Um, but yeah, yeah, no, ultimately it is it is scary. Um but but I think this um comes with an appreciation of uncertainty, um uh an appreciation that we can't see everything ourselves, that the world is too complex for any one mind to understand. Um, and um I don't I don't think it lessens the how scary it feels, but um, I would much rather my colleague to tell me I'm wrong than now than a customer to tell me I'm wrong in five years when we're bankrupt or something, right? You know, there's as much uh um and yeah, but I don't I can't I can't disagree with what you said. It is it is scary. Um but there are there are ways of making it feel easier. Um yeah.

SPEAKER_00:

And more importantly, I think it's an intellectually honest way of doing things where you identify those assumptions first, you question the assumptions, you make sure they're really solid before you build the thing and before you present the solution to the client. So it's also it's thinking ahead and anticipating problems that might come up. And it's ultimately for the good of the client. It's for a positive outcome. So it's actually uh I find it the way you've explained it as a very intellectually rigorous but also honest way of doing things.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I I appreciate yeah, I appreciate you put it very well. Uh, and uh I'd love to take credit, although uh it's it's it's not mine to take credit for in any way. I think um I think one thing to to um this so this could be used on a number of different complex problems, but there's there's something else that's uh very important there. Sorry, just to maybe uh you cause me to reflect. I I really don't like what you said about the um the um conference that must take a leader to use this kind of tool with their own staff. I think there's another way of flipping it actually and saying, why wouldn't we do it this way? Which is that often what it's really tempting to do is uh um in an organization create change by kind of designing up front, thinking it through. You don't want to uh miss anything, so you put a lot of thought into it, so important to you, and then you present it to everyone and go, hey, this is I think because this is what we're gonna do, and this is how we're gonna make things better because we've all been suffering and we want to get to a better, get a player, better place. Um first of all, yeah, we'll be wrong because if it's you know one person can only see so much, and therefore uh he can't, you know, he's not done all the different uh he's not been in all the different roles, experienced all the different uh parts of the organization, uh, even even you know the most experienced leaders haven't. And so they're gonna be missing out a lot of input that can make their ideas even richer and their solutions more uh likely to succeed. But the other part of it is, I guess, fair process that by involving people in the change, they are um that there's a lot of focus on or a lot of concerns about people resisting change, that people don't want to change. And I think people uh this is going back to Eddie Gold. Anything good I say always comes from other people. Um Ellie Goldwright suggests that um people love change. You know, I I had I got married, I chose to get married, I chose to have a baby, I you know, people love change, but only when that change is an improvement. So if people are resisting change, it's not because they're bad people, they're frustrating people, they're just dang, dang annoying. Um, they're just they are resisting change because they don't see the improvement involved in them. And so by getting people to scrutinize the change early, by getting them involved in the process, although it's scary, um, and it takes a very different approach. You're sweating more now, so you bleed less later. If you really care about this change succeeding, once you get people involved at the beginning, they scrutinize it, they improved it, they understand the reason why you're doing what you're doing, and they're able to also input into that, and therefore design the change to be more successful. You don't just have a more successful uh design coming out that you can try, you also have people who abort into it, and the change will take on a life of its own. So I think there's a huge reason to involve people at the very beginning. You can, you know, not just their viewpoints, not just their input to make it more effective, but also you know, you'll you'll have them as part of uh the change itself.

SPEAKER_00:

I'm reminded of design thinking. So you come up with the initial idea, but you don't finesse it until you've given other people a chance to have their voice heard and to get involved. So you're co-opting them early and you're ready, you're you're prepared to make those little adjustments so that the final outcome is something that everybody who is involved has uh had a chance to see, to comment on, as a proof of concept, and then you develop the thing. So it makes perfect sense. It sounds very smart, like a smart way to do things.

SPEAKER_01:

I think there's um I think there's a strong connection between the two, both of them are visual. Um the theory of constraints, particularly uh it's all it really is is based on um logic. It's just uses logic, philosophy, or science, really. Um, so that you it makes you question your idea using a few simple rules like um coherence. Like, you know, your idea has to has to um fit together. If it doesn't even fit together with itself, then it's not gonna work. Um so yeah, absolutely. It is very simple and very visual and gets people involved early. So yeah, I I could see yeah, connection design thinking makes a lot of sense. Yeah, that's good, good cool.

SPEAKER_00:

What's the one takeaway you want our introverted listeners to learn from our conversation?

SPEAKER_01:

I th I think I think it's what you said, which is you know what we both coalesced on, I think, a lot uh in during this chat and our previous chat, Serena, was that people are good. People do things for a reason. Um if we forget people are good.

SPEAKER_04:

We if we think people are bad, it doesn't there's nothing we can do about it.

SPEAKER_01:

We've reached, you know, that's that's the end of the that's the end of the conversation, that's the end of us being able to change things. Uh as Ellie Goldwright says, we will just bitch and loin and that forgive my words, but that's all we can do. Whereas if we accept people are good and that people do things for a reason, it means there's something to learn. Um, and there's something, there's there's a way forward together. This that people are doing we didn't understand that reason, we can talk to them and we can kind of um improve things. I think it's fundamental attribution bias. Um, and that's what I experienced. When I was working with extroverts, I was like, oh, these are bad people. Why am I paired with these? And then I just I'd just bitch a moan and I'd uh not really make any progress. When I suddenly realized, hey, these guys are really good. They're doing things for a reason. It gave me an avenue to improve things. And it was only then that it gave me the avenue for improving things. I had to accept these people were good, um, which is you know silly of me. Um, but uh so um I guess the final thing uh uh uh the takeaway is is for me is people are good, people do things for a reason. Um, and that means that when they're not behaving the way you expect it, whether they're extroverts, where are they just you know different, different averts? Um by understanding why people do the way they do and assuming they're good and they're doing things for a reason, it gives you uh the opportunity to seek to understand before being understood to understand why they're doing the way things the way are, they why they're doing things the way they are, and therefore how you can work together with them and how they can work together with you to do things better.

SPEAKER_00:

Beautiful. And what's the best way for people to connect with you and find out more about your work?

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, sure. I have a weird domain name. Uh it's curious copy.club, not dot com, but dot club. I should have got with dong government.com. Um and uh there's I like to write articles and there's a free book there about um how we can help organizations get out of their own way. Um but also if you want to have a virtual coffee, I'd like to learn from other people, just chat. So um please, please come say hi.

SPEAKER_00:

Beautiful. We'll make sure to have your link in the show notes for people to connect with you at the Curious Coffee Club. So thank you so much, Simon, for joining us today, sharing your time, your wisdom about the theory of constraints, about what it's like in the consulting industry. About how introverts can actually uh uh arise by using our own strengths, but also by uh recognizing and appreciating the strengths of people with different personalities and how we can all work together for the topical goal of optimizing what's happening within our own teams, our own departments, our own organizations and using scientific thinking. But I think the thing that I really would take away from today's conversation is what you said about people always doing things for a reason. I guess because we don't know that reason initially uh simply a reason to get curious. I think you already came up quite a few times about conversation today. So start with the assumption that people are good people. Get curious about why they do the things they do, why they uh show up the way they do, why they speak, or communicate or act the way they do, and at the same time communicate why we think the way we do. And then we can find some room in the middle to you know to collaborate for that calling outcome. So thank you so much for joining us today.

SPEAKER_01:

Thank you very much, Serena. Yes, be curious before you're lovely to be with you.

SPEAKER_00:

If you're looking for ways to become visible without having to act extroverted, subscribe to my newsletter, The Visible Introvert, at Serenalo.com.au. See you on the next episode. I'm so grateful that you're here today. If you found this content valuable, please share it on your social media channels and subscribe to the show on your favorite listening platform. Together we can help more introverts thrive. To receive more uplifting content like this, connect with me on Instagram at Serenaloo, Quiet Warrior Coach. Thank you for sharing your time and your energy with me. See you on the next episode.