Walk with Elizabeth Bachrad: From Ego Systems to Ecosystems

Sep 1

Episode Summary: What changes when we stop thinking about organizations primarily as machines to control and optimize and begin seeing them as living systems?

Susan walks with her friend and fellow wellbeing and health practitioner Elizabeth Bachrad to explore the movement from “ego systems” to ecosystems—and what this shift might reveal about workplace wellbeing, leadership, resilience, human sustainability, and the conditions that allow people and systems to thrive.

SHOW NOTES

What if some of our struggles with workplace wellbeing aren’t really about individuals at all—but about the systems we’ve created around them?

Elizabeth Bachrad is a population health practitioner whose work explores the relationship between work and health, and the policies, practices and systems that shape whether people are able to thrive at work and beyond it.

This conversation began with an idea Elizabeth had been thinking about: what it might mean for organizations to move from “ego systems”—organized largely around their own performance, efficiency and value—to ecosystems that recognize their interdependence with employees, communities, society and the natural world.

Together, Susan and Elizabeth explore what changes when we begin to see organizations less as machines to control and optimize and more as living systems.

They talk about the difference between providing people with wellbeing resources and creating conditions that actually support wellbeing; resilience as something influenced by the system rather than solely the individual; worker voice and feedback; human sustainability; and the movement from leadership as control toward leadership as stewardship.

And they return again and again to a question at the heart of ROOTED:

What conditions help people thrive?

Perhaps the question isn’t only how we help individuals become healthier or more resilient. Perhaps we also need to ask whether the systems around them are healthy—and what conditions might allow the whole system to thrive.

Key Themes

Moving from ego systems to ecosystems
Organizations as living systems rather than machines
Creating the conditions for wellbeing and resilience
Interdependence between individuals, organizations, communities, and the natural world
Human sustainability and regeneration
Leadership as stewardship rather than control
Worker voice, feedback loops, trust, and psychological safety
Balancing people, planet, and profit

Key Takeaways

Individual wellbeing doesn’t exist in isolation. Resources and benefits matter, but the culture, relationships, policies, and conditions surrounding people influence whether those resources can actually support wellbeing.
An ecosystem isn’t automatically a healthy ecosystem. Living systems include competition, scarcity, disruption, and sometimes collapse. What matters are the conditions that support adaptation, resilience, and regeneration.
Resilience is not solely an individual responsibility. Rather than continually asking people to become more resilient, organizations can examine the conditions that make resilience more possible.
Feedback matters. Worker voice can help organizations understand needs, reveal blind spots, and create feedback loops that support trust and healthier decisions.
Leadership can be understood as stewardship. Instead of attempting to control every outcome, leaders can help create and steward the conditions from which healthier outcomes can emerge.

“Know thyself, know the other, and know the system.”
— Elizabeth Bachrad

Connect with Elizabeth

Elizabeth Bachrad is a population health practitioner whose work focuses on the relationship between work and health, including the policies, practices, and systems that influence health, wellbeing, productivity, and the wider communities in which organizations operate.

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

Resources Mentioned

Impact Management Platform
A collaborative resource supporting organizations in understanding and managing their impacts on people and the planet.
https://impactmanagementplatform.org/

B Corp
Certified B Corporations meet B Lab standards related to social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.
https://www.bcorporation.net/

Benefit Corporations / Public Benefit Corporations
A legal corporate structure designed to allow companies to consider stakeholders and public benefit alongside financial returns. Requirements vary by jurisdiction.
https://usca.bcorporation.net/benefit-corporation/

Reflection Prompt

Where in your own life or work might you be focusing on the wellbeing of the individual without noticing the health of the larger system around them?

Prefer to read? The full transcript is below.

Full Transcript
Getting Started
Susan:
Well, hello, Elizabeth. It's so fun to be with you today.
Elizabeth:
Yeah, you as well. Thanks for having me.
Susan:
I am excited about this. We had a conversation, boy, early summer, where we were doing one of the things that we like to do together, which was a bit of sharing our theories and philosophies and the ways our brains are expanding our thinking and perception.
And that led you to share with me an idea that we're going to talk about today.
But before we go there, can you share a little bit with listeners about who you are and what you're doing these days?
Elizabeth:
Yeah, absolutely. So I am Elizabeth Bachrad. I currently live in London in the United Kingdom, and I'm a transplant from California. I'm born and bred.
A lot of what I do now is looking at the interplay between policy and practice on workplace health systems. And so, from a population health background, I'm trying to understand the long-term approaches and outcomes that happen when we design work the way we do, when we offer different policies and practices the way we do.
What happens with our productivity? What happens with our health and wellbeing? How does that ultimately impact the rest of society? And why, in this day and age, can we not get it right?
It's a loaded topic, but in the end, I think we work really hard in our work lives to get to a point where it's both fulfilling, but also a contribution to the economy and society. And somewhere in the mix, it's just breaking down.
So I try to solve that through proactive policies and coordination of different types of leadership systems, and ultimately hold people accountable to driving these energies and forces that we call the work life.
We Are All Part of Systems
Susan:
I like it. I'm excited about what we're going to talk about today.
You talked about systems, and listeners know, because we've talked about it before, but just to spend a minute on it: we both have a background helping organizations create workspaces where humans can thrive.
And ideally, it's not just for the humans that they employ, but there's a ripple effect, and it impacts the communities and anybody they interact with. I mean, this is the dream, right? Everyone thriving is the dream.
Elizabeth:
Absolutely.
Susan:
And you mentioned systems, and we spend a lot of time talking about systems on the podcast because of the reality that we are all interconnected.
While at times individuals and groups and teams and departments—and however you want to organize the humans—can pretend or make believe or make up a story, maybe that's the right way, make up a story that they can act independently and thrive, I debate the truth of that statement.
I think that it's impossible that one entity could thrive long term because we're all interconnected, no matter how hard we try not to be.
Elizabeth:
I debate that all day long. And somehow it's still a debate.
Susan:
Well, let's debate it in the best way, right?
So your high-level philosophy that you shared with me was centered around this idea of ecosystems and ego systems.
And before we even go super deep on that, the thing that stands out is we're talking about systems, right? We're talking about a system, and that implies interconnectivity.
Ego Systems and Ecosystems
Elizabeth:
Yeah. It implies it until it sits centrally in an ego system. So I can unpack that a little bit.
Susan:
Go for it.
Elizabeth:
When we think of ego, you might think, okay, that's your personality, or you go to school and learn about being egocentric.
But when we think about it in ego systems, what it's saying is that it's an organizing principle within organizations, right?
So the ego system is really about understanding that unit of attention. And if we can think about why we want to shift from that, it's because the organization tends to see itself as the center of everything.
What do we need? How do we perform? How do we maximize value?
There's a lot of inherent flaw with that because it's taking away the value of that organization and its interdependence on the rest of the other systems.
So it's forcing us to reconcile how we take the organization outside of that frame and understand more of its purpose within the wider system, within the ecological boundaries, within the perspectives of other stakeholders, and ultimately those dynamics of the wider system.
So we're trying to move away from extraction and lean more into that interdependence and what it really forces the organization to design itself around.
What Do We Mean by Ego?
Susan:
Okay, so let's play with ego for a little bit, just because when people are hearing this, I can hear—I make up a story that some of the listeners are getting defensive. They might be defensive, right?
Because when you hear ego, you're sort of like, "Well, I don't have an ego," or, you know, it's got a negative connotation.
The ego has a place in the world, right? The ego does have a purpose for the reason it exists.
So when you just play with ego as a word and you hear me say some people might get sort of defensive around that, what comes up for you?
Elizabeth:
Yeah, well, I kind of think of it as it's part of the self, right?
So when we think of the old literature that we used to learn about ego, the ego, it's not just about who you are as a person. It's your orientation to how you do things.
And so if we think about traditional management systems, even looking at the old industrial model, organizations were developed to engineer, standardize, measure, optimize, control.
And what it does is it puts a frame and a lens on itself.
And so it's the ego system that actually doesn't take into account, what about everybody else?
So an organization that is maximizing value for itself, maximizing profit for itself, perhaps might be doing this at the expense of others. Not always, but what we want to come to a reckoning with is, well, it's a different orientation to think about it beyond the organization itself.
And if we optimize just the parts, we're not considering the whole of how it shows up in the other entities around it, for the people that go back into their communities, for the earth.
You know, all of these AI data centers that are being built up—it's an extraction of resources.
So I start to think of it more as a lens of how we do things and how things are designed. And so that's what I'm pushing back against, looking at it through leadership as much as an organization itself.
Looking Beyond the Organization
Susan:
Yeah. Okay, so as we're talking, I can see it all. I can see it all. I can see the organizations that were examples of organizations—almost like a continuum, right?
There's some organizations on one end of the continuum that are centered around themselves and the broader...
I'm going to pick on examples that are more known, like Patagonia, for instance, the clothing maker.
They're designed around product, right? Selling a product. But they've also got a whole piece of the work that they do where they've created a foundation and future profits go to the planet, right? So that's part of their mission.
And then, you know, that's on one end of a continuum. And then on the other end—and I should say somewhere in the middle are B Corporations and organizations that have formed with broader impact in mind.
And maybe I'm not using a great example with Patagonia being on one end, but then the other one is just, I would say, the organizations who formed without even thinking about the possibility that they could do both: generate revenue and be successful while also having impact in the community or on the greater good.
Elizabeth:
Yeah. And because we work in a space, I think it's pretty intuitive for us to think that way, to organize that way, to have the lens of that interplay between the larger system dynamics and the structures and processes, even the culture of an individual organization.
Yet we still run up against the extractive models as a way to get more profit.
And so I keep thinking lately, like, what's happening with all of this slashing of the workforce, slashing of benefits, reducing headcount, all in the sake of efficiency?
And what that's doing is saying, well, we're absolutely putting profit ahead of our people. And I feel like that's really demoralizing on so many levels.
So, you know, I don't want to name and blame at the moment.
But what I do see when you have Patagonia, when you have B Corps—of course they'll always have some issues to deal with—but what they're saying is they're trying to figure out how to regenerate and not just take.
So it's kind of that almost as simplistic, even though it's entirely complex: Do we give more than we take? Or can we balance it in a way that plays in this ecosystem?
That requires collaboration through governance that limits the power of individual players, that supports people with their maternity and paternity leave or parental leave so that all of society actually benefits from that.
Because it's easier for the children to grow up with support. It's easier to get back and participate in the economy.
So it has this whole regenerative effect if we break down that lens a little bit and say, okay, we are required at this day and age to reorganize because what we're doing now is not fit for purpose for the long term.
So how do we move out of that short-termism into not just long-termism, but also the dynamics that come with thinking about others?
Can Business Do Both?
Susan:
Yeah. It just hit me, because it just hit me.
For the most part, I would say—I'm really curious now. I'm going to have to do some research after, and maybe you know.
There's probably examples—I'm going to say there's for sure examples—of organizations who said, "I'm going to start a business so that I can create opportunities for humans to do work of value, so that I'm sustaining a community and a people and giving them opportunities they might not have had. And it's also going to generate revenue."
And, you know, it's a win-win.
At first I couldn't think of anybody, and by the time I was done I was like, I can think of organizations that I've had on the podcast before who maybe didn't start the company for that reason, but absolutely found a way to generate revenue right alongside the intention of doing good for the greater good.
Whether it was their employment policies and practices, the resources they offered people, how they paid people—I mean, we could go on and on.
So it does exist.
Elizabeth:
Yeah. It does exist. There are examples around the world.
And I think in the U.S. in particular, any corporation that establishes itself as a public benefit corporation is supposedly doing that.
And even private corporations can do it too.
DHL has a global head of health and wellbeing that is really focusing on these two components and what's required for people to build out the capabilities to come alongside these digital transformations.
I know we also have the opposite end of the spectrum where almost all of the ChatGPTs, the Anthropic, all of the large language models that are helping us do our work differently are also public benefit corporations.
So we kind of have to have the accountability and feedback loops within it to hold these companies accountable to.
And I think that's where a lot of the experience of worker voice comes in and different ways of governance.
Because at the end, if we say that, okay, this AI company is a public benefit corporation, yet we know they're extracting all of the resources in the world right now to make these machines run, the mercantilist is the point.
So in a perfect world, we still need some checks and balances.
But that is the beauty of moving toward an ecosystem because that's what they do.
And ecosystems are not just automatically healthy, right?
It really needs that stewardship. It needs a different orientation of leadership.
And we've talked about this a lot around generating conditions that allow people to thrive alongside the profit making.
And ultimately we want both—that win-win, you know, the triple win. We could extend it to replenish our natural resources as well.
So there are so many examples, and there is some impact management that exists on a global scale.
Through the OECD, for example, if you go on our Impact Management Platform, you can see the different types of organizations that are doing this, understand their frameworks, because it can be done based on the culture and orientation of the organization itself.
People, Planet and Profit
Susan:
Yeah. Yes, you called out something I wish was used more often so that it would have rolled off my tongue earlier: the concept of the triple bottom line—the people, the planet and the profit.
And here in the States, we don't talk about it as much as they do around the world.
But yeah, and it's funny, I hadn't considered the public benefit corporation. And I want to go back and do some research, right?
Because I struggle to understand how you get labeled that without consideration for the planet piece.
But I also look and say, remember how this podcast talks a lot about how we forget about nature and how we are nature and how we're connected to nature.
So it's like, we should not be surprised that we've had, for so long, an extraction mentality around the planet.
It's here for our use and to provide us to build great things. That's what it's here for.
But that's certainly how it's been treated for millennia.
And it is here for our use and to provide great things, but in moderation and in a way that allows for regeneration and not complete depletion.
Elizabeth:
Yeah, we've talked about this.
Susan:
Which fits for the humans piece too.
Organizations as Living Systems
Elizabeth:
Exactly. I was going to say nature gives us another way of understanding organizations, right?
Because if we look at healthy living systems—and you brought this up—they depend on relationships. They depend on diversity, feedback from other organisms, adaptation, interdependence.
If you've read any book on trees, they'll tell you that everything happens underneath, you know, that mycelium network where they support each other. They give each other resources. When one's burned down, the others provide the layers that help regenerate.
You know, so plants know what to do.
But it's different than our traditional metaphor of how organizations work today and the machines that we want to build and make more efficient.
So if living systems adapt to these changing conditions, then this is a good way to look at organizations.
The information is to travel through feedback loops. Diversity in thought and experience can increase our resilience, especially in uncertainty.
And so if we think about organizations as living systems too, then they're required to work with each other so that that interdependence becomes even more pronounced.
Giving People Resources Isn't Enough
Susan:
Yeah. I mean, we are—in my world, for many moons, I have talked about the concept that you're talking about, right?
For years it was—well, I would say we've kind of been all over the place.
In more recent years, we were experiencing a situation where employers would say, "Here's all the resources you need to be well. We give you these benefits. We give you these..."
My dog has a lot to say about this.
In more recent years, we were experiencing a situation where employers would say, "Here's all the resources you need to be well. We give you these benefits. We give you these..."
Whatever it is.
And I've heard people over the years say, "You know, we give them so much and we can't, you know, lead a horse to water, right? Like if they don't choose to use it, they don't choose to use it."
And I actually wonder, can you lead a horse to water? Like, I actually looked that up because it's such a weird phrase.
Elizabeth:
It is a weird phrase.
Susan:
But anyways, I digress. Focus.
Thinking about that idea, giving them the resources is one thing, but what they're surrounded by—the ecosystem of support, the cultural support the organization provides—is essential to their wellbeing.
You can give people all sorts of resources, but if they can't access it, if the organization fights against it, if the social norms—we could go on and on.
And so we know that everything is connected.
And just feeding a plant—you know, let's pretend like the humans are the plants in the organization—just feeding them is not going to do enough.
If we really want them to thrive, we have to think about the entire ecosystem that they operate in every day.
Ecosystems Aren't Automatically Healthy
Elizabeth:
Yeah. We don't want to romanticize nature, that nature always cooperates, right?
Because there's still competition. There's still scarcity. There's all these—not natural disasters anymore because there are human-made disasters—but the disruption that comes from all these climate events.
So sometimes there is collapse.
And so I just want to emphasize that an ecosystem doesn't automatically mean that system is healthy.
But when we think about the adaptability and the conditions that allow nature, people, to be able to cope, handle, adapt when circumstances change, having these different perspectives and different capabilities allows us to thrive and to triumph, essentially.
We still need those conditions.
And that includes, in an organization, the psychological safety, opportunity to be able to contribute to how these different perspectives might actually bring us closer to the value exchange that sometimes we hope for but don't actually see.
The Conditions That Enable Resilience
Susan:
Yeah. I was literally presenting on this topic today with a group.
Elizabeth:
Yeah, see? It's so funny.
Susan:
I know. The timing is amazing.
But I was talking about resilience. So they had asked me to come in and talk about resilience. I had talked about resilience with this group before.
And as I spent time thinking on it, I started thinking about the conditions that enable resilience, in the same way we're thinking about conditions that enable thriving.
It's all the things you listed, but also thinking about relationships, connections in the workplace—so key.
The workplace environment itself. Why we come together. Like, why are we here? What are we meant to accomplish together?
There's so much potential within the ecosystem.
And as we're talking, I'm realizing if it's just—and I know this, but it's said a different way, right?—if it's an ego system where the point is to make a product, to make money, to get a paycheck for everybody of varying sizes, depending on who you are in the organization, it totally changes the game.
Elizabeth:
It changes the game completely.
And I think because there are so many components sometimes to an organization.
So if you have a supply chain, for example, just because that's part of your ecosystem doesn't mean you're not exploiting people or the planet.
And the same thing about partnerships and relationships. You can have fantastic partnerships, but they're creating an unhealthy work—or this highly connected ecosystem that still damages communities and, essentially, nature.
So the ecosystem-thinking lens really asks us, well, how do we see organizations?
Does it change what we design the organization to produce? Does it generate health? Does it create health? Does it generate capability, trust, relationships and sustainable performance?
And then now we're evaluating organizations based on what they're organized to produce instead of what they produce.
So that changes leadership as well.
And then it really—I love when we talk about this because it says, well, leaders are now—not now—but they become a way to connect people, to develop these positive relationships.
And they become more about creating the conditions for those aspects to thrive rather than just managing people.
Human Sustainability
Susan:
Yeah. It broadens the responsibility, which for some might be a little—or the opportunity, if we flip that.
One of the things—so we're going to be attending the world's largest human sustainability conference in Portugal next month.
And I've told a number of folks that I'm attending the conference, and the number of times I get a, "What? Human sustainability?"
Like, maybe it's a States thing. I'd welcome your perspective from across the pond.
I've had to explain what in the world that means a number of times.
How would you explain it? And are you experiencing the same thing where people are saying, "What?" Or is it different over there?
Elizabeth:
Yeah, it's a great question.
So it's starting to be used.
I would say that because people associate sustainability generally with assignments or long-lasting, I think the human aspect of it is not just simply sustainability.
Because sometimes I think the orientation is, "Just do less damage."
So when I think about human sustainability, I really think, okay, the regenerative perspective.
So how do we replenish our resources upon which we depend?
And that includes human capability. So building that rather than just exhausting us to the point of collapse.
In the lens of work, it's one that strengthens relationships rather than fragments them.
And I think with human sustainability, even in an organization, that means that we're contributing to communities and places rather than just taking those resources from them.
So that connects humans to the environment, to the social landscape.
And if it meant that good work left people and places healthier than it found them, like, isn't that the ultimate goal of society?
I mean, I would think so, but, you know, it's like, leave the place in a better condition than when you arrived.
I mean, this is big, deep stuff, but it means that other people get to enjoy it just as much.
And it teaches that these are the practices that allow us and provide the conditions for flourishing.
A Forest as a Metaphor
Susan:
Yeah.
This is for those who are listening who are sort of—I'm so curious. This is where I wish we had a live studio audience.
Because I'm so curious as I think about this.
There are, you know, I'm talking metaphors a lot, right?
So if there are people who are struggling to understand the application of this in the human world, right, what you've just described, let me flip this over and just—let me whip up a nature metaphor for us, right?
So I will pick paper. Let me pick paper, right?
So paper comes from trees.
And there's a couple different ways to do this, right?
We can go into a forest and just clear-cut all the trees down and move on to the next forest and clear-cut all those trees down.
The reality is we would get all that product. We would extract all that product, and we'd get plenty of paper out of that.
But the reality is, if we do that in a thoughtful way—because what happens when I clear-cut is I also—the rest of the wildlife is disrupted. Their homes are disrupted. The biodiversity of that space is disrupted. It's not great. It's not a livable place for a lot of stuff, right?
So the other way to do that is in a regenerative or more sustainable way.
And it is to go through the forest and evaluate which trees are ready to contribute to the paper making.
I mean, you know, this tree is of the right size. It is of the right measure. It's lived this long. Let us take that out.
Because when you pull that big tree out, guess what else happens?
It lets in more light for the baby trees that were underneath it to now actually get more sunlight to grow, to be able to grow.
And I could go on with this metaphor all day long.
But the point is that we're not clear-cutting.
And when I just take out some of the trees and extract some of it—I extract resources from that ecosystem in balance, with thoughtfulness, with consideration for everybody's ability to thrive, whether it's the tree, you know, that tree and the beings that are attached to that tree, or the forest community that surrounds it—I'm increasing the likelihood that I'm going to get paper from that forest for a long time to come.
Leadership as Stewardship
Elizabeth:
Yeah. You're stewarding the conditions where good outcomes can emerge for everybody.
And that's different than saying, "I'm going to control these circumstances so I can get the most profit, and I'm going to—okay, can we reduce headcount? And can we reduce workloads? And can you just automate everything?"
It's like, why? Why would we decide to think we can control that?
When the reality is, like you said, you're evaluating the way in which if you do it this way and that way and you think about how that impacts the light that comes in—and lighting is certainly a human sustainability condition as well. Air quality, all these things, right?
So you're connecting it to nature, but every one of those components directly impacts the human as well.
So if we think about that, that is stewardship.
And I think people like to be good stewards.
All right, this is a quality that feels good amongst everyone that I know, even across political boundaries.
So if stewardship allows good, if not the best, outcomes to emerge, I mean, this is a huge leadership win for everybody.
Susan:
Yeah. A leadership win, a planet win, a people win. It's a win for everybody, all three Ps.
So when we think about that, what—I'm curious through the conversations you've had—what bubbles up amongst leaders as maybe the easiest shift for them to make in perspective versus some of the things that are more hard to let go of?
Worker Voice and Feedback Loops
Elizabeth:
Well, this is part of the debate, isn't it?
Because it is not just about benefits to employees, which seems to be more of the easiest thing to control.
So it's really about the infrastructure.
I think one of the easiest ways, and slightly controversial still in this day and age, is getting the worker voice to do some sense-checking.
We're thinking about doing this. How does that sit? How does that feel?
And you mentioned people aren't taking these benefits up.
And it's like, well, are they the right benefits? Probably not.
And you work in this field, so you know exactly what I'm talking about in terms of curation.
How are we looking at our people, segmenting the data, understanding what they really need, and then sense-checking it?
Those feedback loops do not cost anything, maybe a little bit of time, but they are intentional.
They allow issues to emerge that many people don't see because they're in blind spots.
And it starts to slowly tell your people that you're developing trust signs, that we want to develop these human capabilities, and that we want the organization to be resilient, not just individuals.
And so then things start to happen.
And you start to see the other aspects that are a little, sometimes harder to measure, sometimes harder to monitor, like cultivating trust and some of the more abstract things around purpose, psychological safety, capacity to adapt.
So that's where I would start.
But at the end of the day, there's also the opportunity to have someone steward this for you.
I think we've pushed out people in certain roles that actually could hold all of these components and understand the dynamics and the interplay.
So having someone either at that chief level or at least having the competencies across the spectrum of these different components, build strategy out of it.
Why would we cut those extremely important individuals or groups that understand that interplay?
And so that's why I would say don't cut back those resources.
Figure out what makes sense in your organization to be able to hold all of those dynamics at once and figure out how to work through them.
The Value of Different Perspectives
Susan:
Yeah, outside perspective is really helpful. And getting out and having someone else to lean on.
It's funny. And as we say that, I'm still amazed at how many leaders feel like they have to have all the answers, and so perceive bringing in someone with a mindset that can see things a little differently as a weakness.
When in fact, you know, we all have different strengths.
And it's, you know, an ecosystem—since we're talking about ecosystems—a thriving ecosystem is made up of different plants and animals and natural elements.
If it was all one thing, it wouldn't be a thriving ecosystem.
And so the same goes for the organization.
Different perspectives, different experience, different ages, different—all of it, right? It's all essential.
So, you know, three cheers to bringing in the idea of someone who also has the strength that might be, you know, connectivity, ability to see the bigger picture, empathy.
And, you know, as we're talking about all of this and thinking about—we're also talking, you know, we're not suggesting by any means that organizations can't make money by also considering the people and the planet.
Because there's part of people who are like, "But that's not possible if I do all that."
And it's like, no, no. It happens all the time, every day.
Elizabeth:
It's entirely possible.
And one of the things I keep coming back to—it's kind of my mantra—is like, we are capable.
We actually know how to do this. And we know how to do it well.
And so kind of the philosophical simplification of all of this is: Know thyself, know the other, and know the system.
Susan:
Mm.
Elizabeth:
That allows us to have a different lens on how to make all of this possible.
What Is Work Designed to Produce?
Susan:
Yeah. And I mean, we have examples abound that it's possible, right?
Whether it's organizations themselves who have done it. We've called out a few. We've called out where to look.
Then we can look.
And again, I beat this drum regularly, but eventually everybody's going to be like, "I see. We are natural creatures who work and live in systems."
And so to pretend that the organization—an organization—is an exception to that, if it has natural beings in it, is short—short—I don't know if it's shortsighted or maybe just a giant blind spot.
I don't know what the best word to describe it is, but denial. Maybe it's denial.
Elizabeth:
Yeah, I mean, we've got to get out of the grind.
I think from what I've noticed, my biggest perspective from living in Europe, working in Europe and the U.S., is just the orientation around what work means to individuals and societies.
And so there's clearly different ways to do things.
And you could call out, okay, well, that doesn't drive innovation.
It's like, well, what is the goal of the workplace? What is the goal of the work itself? What is it designed to produce?
And so that becomes a cultural fixation and largely driven by the marketplace.
And so if we're contributing to that and we are a part of that society, a part of the economic activity, then we get to determine.
We're not—we're not at a loss of what to do.
I think that's part of why I enjoy this lens and perspective, is that it generates that agency as well.
I think we start to see this from the younger generations a little bit, like, "Uh-uh. That's not—that's not..."
And we see that as resistance sometimes when in reality, like toughness, it's just a different orientation to how to do things.
You know, I think we can learn a lot from different generations, from different cultures.
And I personally believe, and I think others do as well, that we don't have to take this so seriously.
You know, and I know a lot of times that crosses over into financial security and social mobility.
But if we can invite those dynamics and the interplay to then look at the impact of all of society, we lift everybody up.
Lifting the bottom lifts everybody.
So that's kind of a different orientation.
Susan:
Yeah. Yeah, and yes.
And we are not suggesting by any means that, you know, capitalism needs to go away.
There's a way to have a capitalistic society that cares, I believe.
Elizabeth:
Conscious capitalism, sustainable capitalism.
Yeah, there are definitely models. There's actually frameworks and regulation around that.
So, yeah, a public benefit corporation is technically required by law to consider the humans alongside the profits.
And so we need to get better about that theory into practice.
Playing With Another Possibility
Susan:
Yeah. Yes.
Well, we could probably go on talking for a long time.
We hit upon some high points.
Before we do the wrap, was there anything else you wanted to share with the audience that you think would be helpful for them to hear on this topic?
Elizabeth:
No, I just want to reiterate that with any new lens or orientation or even just different perspective, it still requires strategy.
So it's not just a walk in the park.
Susan:
Ha!
Elizabeth:
We said it before. It requires intention. It requires patience, some courage, and the willingness to try different things and see how it feels, how it works, and get the feedback loops to know that you're on the right track.
Susan:
Yeah.
And as we were talking toward the end, I was thinking, you know, we are doing this recording via the internet with headphones and Bluetooth and technology that didn't exist in the past.
And yet innovation and evolution of communication and the modes that it happens has evolved.
And I think everybody who's listening is probably pretty grateful for that shift and change—that we aren't, you know, calling an operator to have a conversation, right?
So this idea—there's lots of examples of things that have evolved and changed for the better.
What we talked about today was just one more opportunity to play with it.
And I would encourage everybody to just play, right?
Don't, you know, maybe don't resist—or if anybody you know is resistant, just ask them to play a little bit with this idea that maybe there's—maybe there is another way.
We don't know, right? But we're certainly trying to figure it out.
And I agree with what you shared at the top.
I'm not sure that the way it's working is working.
I mean, I know—I believe it's really not.
But so why not go back to the drawing board and play and see if some other possibilities can come forth through that activity?
Elizabeth:
Absolutely. Yeah.
Natural Favorites
Susan:
All right.
Well, in an effort to have folks get to know you a little bit better in a slightly different way, since we talked so purely seriously, I want to end with Natural Favorites—just a little bit of playing with nature before we go off.
So no right or wrong answers to the questions, just a few fun questions.
Are you open to playing?
Elizabeth:
Yeah, absolutely.
Susan:
All right. So your favorite place to spend time in nature?
Elizabeth:
On the beach.
Susan:
Okay, so any beach?
Elizabeth:
On the way—yeah. Water, waves, sand. I'm there.
Susan:
All right. Love it.
Favorite sound in nature?
Elizabeth:
I love a birdsong. And thanks to you, I have my Merlin app that tells me what I'm listening to.
Very peaceful.
Susan:
Yes. I love it.
Favorite season?
Elizabeth:
My favorite season is the autumn, the fall.
Yeah, when the leaves start to change and the leaves start to fall.
It goes from a little bit warmer to a little bit cooler, and it's a regenerative place in my heart.
Susan:
I like that one.
All right, last one.
You have a dandelion in your hand that has gone to seed. You get to make a wish.
What are you going to wish?
Elizabeth:
Do I have to say it out loud? Doesn't that mean it doesn't come true?
Susan:
Well, for this, maybe pick one you can say out loud.
Elizabeth:
My wish is that everyone can experience enough joy in their lives that keeps them going for as long as possible.
Susan:
You're here. I love that.
Thank you for sharing that.
This was fun. That was a very fast discussion, so I think we were in the flow there.
Thank you for playing along and walking with me today.
Elizabeth:
Thank you so much. It's been my absolute pleasure.

Susan Bailey