Listen:
Check out all episodes on the My Favorite Mistake main page.
My guest for Episode #316 of the My Favorite Mistake podcast is Jim Schleckser, founder and CEO of The CEO Project. Jim is a seasoned business leader, bestselling author, and trusted advisor to CEOs around the world. With experience spanning 42 countries and multiple industries, Jim has spent decades helping leaders grow their companies and think more strategically. He’s also the author of Great CEOs Are Lazy and Professional Drinking, and he’s a certified sommelier—something we get to at the end of the episode!
In our conversation, Jim shares a formative early-career mistake—being too optimistic as a leader. His enthusiasm led to overpromising revenue, under-delivering on results, and ultimately damaging his credibility to the point where he had to leave the organization. Jim reflects on how he’s since learned to balance positivity with realism, buffer commitments, and truly listen to skeptics on his team. His story is a powerful reminder that leadership isn’t just about vision—it’s also about judgment, humility, and learning from painful experiences.
We also dive into what it means to be an effective CEO, including why Jim says great CEOs are lazy. He shares how high-performing executives focus their time on removing bottlenecks, not micromanaging, and why a trusted CEO peer group can be a game-changing support system. Plus, for fellow wine lovers, we cap off the episode with a fun bonus: wine mistakes, how to order like a pro, and Jim’s best tip for getting the most out of a wine list.
Questions and Topics:
- What’s your favorite mistake, and what did you learn from it?
- Can you share specific examples of how your optimism led to overcommitment or missed expectations?
- How did that mistake affect your credibility and position in the company?
- How have you learned to balance optimism with realism in leadership?
- What’s your approach to setting stretch goals versus achievable targets?
- How can unrealistic goals create dysfunction or unethical behavior in organizations?
- What’s the best way to avoid data manipulation and maintain integrity in performance reporting?
- What is The CEO Project, and how does a CEO peer group provide value to its members?
- You say “great CEOs are lazy”—what does that really mean, and how does it work in practice?
- How can CEOs identify the biggest constraint or bottleneck in their business?
- Why do some CEOs struggle to admit mistakes, and how does that affect their leadership credibility?
- How do peer groups foster psychological safety for leaders?
- What inspired you to become a certified sommelier?
- What are some common mistakes people make when ordering wine?
- What’s your best tip for confidently ordering wine at a restaurant?
- If someone only drinks Napa Cabernets, what’s a good way to branch out?
- Have you observed gender bias in how sommeliers treat guests at the table?
Scroll down to find:
- Video version of the episode
- How to subscribe
- Quotes
- Full transcript
Find Jim on social media:
Video of the Episode:
Quotes:
Click on an image for a larger view
Subscribe, Follow, Support, Rate, and Review!
Please follow, rate, and review via Apple Podcasts, Podchaser, or your favorite app—that helps others find this content, and you'll be sure to get future episodes as they are released.
Don't miss an episode! You can sign up to receive new episodes via email.
This podcast is part of the Lean Communicators network.
Other Ways to Subscribe or Follow — Apps & Email
Episode Summary and More
Actionable Takeaways from the Episode
Leverage Peer Groups for Continuous Improvement
Key Insight: The importance of having a peer group as a CEO is emphasized throughout the discussion. Jim describes how such groups can provide accountability and diverse perspectives: “It's a mixed group of people, different industries, different backgrounds around you with no agenda except to see you do better.” Actively seek out or create a peer group in your industry, where you can discuss challenges, share experiences, and support each other's growth in a confidential and collaborative environment.
Enhance Leadership through Optimism with Realism
Key Insight: Jim Schleckser emphasizes the balance between optimism and realism in leadership. Reflect on your leadership style and ensure you’re not overly optimistic without the critical filter of realism. He reflects on his personal experience, “I was too optimistic…I try to listen to people when they go, hey, that may not work out.” Implement mechanisms to get candid feedback from your team to validate your projections and actions.
Implement Stretch Goals with Transparent Communication
Key Insight: When setting goals, use a balanced approach between achievable goals and stretch targets. Jim discusses this concept by suggesting a method for goal setting: “I prefer to project below the hump, meaning like a 30, 40% probability of not making. Most of the probability is we're going to make it.” Use this framework to set motivating yet realistic goals that encourage growth without setting up for potential failure. Communicate openly about the risks and opportunities involved to build trust and morale among your team.
Automated Transcript (May Contain Mistakes)
Mark Graban:
Hi, welcome to My Favorite Mistake. I'm your host, Mark Graban. Our guest today is Jim Schleckser. He's the founder and CEO of The CEO Project, and he helps leaders grow companies. So with 30 years of business leadership experience, Jim has led global organizations in public and private environments across many functional areas.
Mark Graban:
He is also the author of two bestselling published books. He's been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and NPR. His ideas have been translated into nine languages and he's done business in over 42 countries. So before I tell you a little bit more about Jim, welcome to the podcast. How are you?
Jim Schleckser:
Thanks for having me. I'm glad to be here. Thanks, Mark.
Mark Graban:
42 countries. Is that—does that cover every continent but Australia, or not Australia, Antarctica. I meant to say Antarctica. My mistake.
Jim Schleckser:
Yep, yep. Every continent except for those two. So I've got some work to do.
Mark Graban:
So let me tell you a little more about Jim. He has a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Delaware, an MBA in marketing and finance from the University of Connecticut, and he holds a doctorate in business administration from the University of Maryland Global Campus. So Jim also today serves on multiple for-profit and nonprofit boards. He's an avid soccer player, a prolific reader, and I love this part, a certified sommelier.
Jim Schleckser:
Got it. We can drink some wine together when you—when we're ready.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, yeah, it's—it's midday. I don't have any wine in front of me. We should have scheduled this for five.
Jim Schleckser:
O'clock in England. It's like six already. Come on.
Mark Graban:
It's five o'clock. Five o'clock somewhere. Maybe later on. I would love to ask you a little bit about wine mistakes that consumers or even professionals might make. But first things first, the main question I'm really curious to hear from all the different things that you've done and you are doing.
Mark Graban:
Jim, what's your favorite mistake?
Jim Schleckser:
Well, early in my career, and I probably still suffer from it, optimism. It's funny, you know, people follow optimists, that you want to be an optimistic leader, you want to be positive about the future. But early in my career, I was too optimistic. You know, I projected outcomes that were just not going to happen. And I didn't have the realism filter on my lenses and caused me and my organization to overcommit.
Jim Schleckser:
I got them and myself into a heck of a lot of trouble as a result of it. Ultimately, I had to leave that organization because I damaged my credibility so badly by being just too damn optimistic. And so I'm still optimistic, but I try to listen to people when they go, “Hey, that may not work out.” I do try to listen much better than I used to. So that was a learning.
Jim Schleckser:
It was a kind of a hard learning. I mean it ended up turning out just fine, as many of these things do. But yeah, optimism, you know, superpower and fatal flaw in the same feature.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, you get lift off, but you get a little too close to the sun or—I don't know if that's the right analogy, but. But so tell us, I mean, where did you overcommit? To business goals, sales goals, timing on projects? Can you give us some specifics of what was involved there?
Jim Schleckser:
All of the above, but most importantly, revenue goals. It was a relatively early-stage company. We built capital equipment for other manufacturers to clean and help them manufacture their products. So the sales were kind of lumpy. They were big projects and we'd get them or we wouldn't get them.
Jim Schleckser:
And I was always, you know, too optimistic about when we would close these things. So it was some combination of revenue and timing together. It wasn't like we had 100 orders a month. It was a handful or two a month. And so, you know, if I was wrong on a couple, we pretty materially missed the month. Also, you know, just because when you—you got the disease.
Jim Schleckser:
You got the disease. There were product developments that I were doing in that business and, you know, I was overly optimistic about when they'd hit the market and the revenue they'd generate. So yeah, both on timing, revenue, ultimately, therefore, profitability, project launches. I mean I kind of did a little bit of everything in terms of screwing up. So yeah, it was, you know, not my finest moment.
Jim Schleckser:
We did good work. But, you know, we—and the problem is I had a—I had a. The guy I worked for, a guy was the CEO of the entire entity. It was when I was a division president, who was pretty hard on that.
Jim Schleckser:
Like he expected me to always deliver. No negotiation, no appreciation for the complexities of what's going on. And so we—we—we had a difficult relationship as a result, which is part of why I ended up having to leave the organization.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, I mean when—when—when you say, and thank you for sharing all that, when you say it was hurting your credibility, did you get direct feedback? Was there kind of an ultimatum, or did you just get a sense that it was better to move on and try again?
Jim Schleckser:
Well, so I've never really told this story before, but he came down and met with my management team and talked about what was going on and so forth. I was not in the room. I was not invited. And, you know, really with the question of should Jim be leading this business or not. Right. And, you know, at the end of that, they had a thumbs up, thumbs down.
Jim Schleckser:
I don't know what the count was, but I think he had a preordained conclusion. Anyway, I ended up rolling back to just VP of Sales and like, “Well, my career is pretty well done at this place. I'm gonna.” So it was a pretty clear signal as a result of that. I mean, I guess the blessing was there was enough value that I wasn't fired.
Jim Schleckser:
But, you know, I took a little step back in my career as a result of it. You know, we overcame it, but it was—it was not a great time.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, you raise. I mean, I think, you know, a really important point when it comes to listening to the input of others. And if an optimist runs into a skeptic or a cynic or, like, how do you find the balance? Because being the optimist doesn't mean you're wrong. Being the cynic doesn't mean you're right.
Mark Graban:
There's—there's judgment, and judgment calls to be made. Have—have you learned more about, you know, finding—finding that balance?
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah, I try to—try to buffer my commitments just intrinsically now. And also when I hear a pessimist, who all claim—all claim they're realists, by the way, but they're pessimists, they go. I go, “Okay, so let's just talk about it. What's the probability of that happening?
Jim Schleckser:
What would we do if it did happen? What can we do to prevent it from happening? How are we going to handle if it does happen?” And then build that into the plan so I'm not sort of blindsided when things don't quite go as hoped. So between the buffering and being more—instead of ignoring them, which is what I used to, “Give them the highest.
Jim Schleckser:
I don't want to talk to you.”
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Now I go, “Okay, let me understand your concern. Let me understand all of those factors and build that into the plan.” And end of the day, it makes it a more robust and deliverable commitment. So, you know, and they felt. They feel heard as well, which I think is important to keep everybody on sides.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. I mean, they are being heard. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I think of, you know, corporate settings.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. And, you know, and trying to find this balance. You—you hear some people preach, you know, the acronym SMART goals, of which the A is attainable or achievable. I think, you know, do we have an achievable goal?
Mark Graban:
Corporations also love to talk about stretch goals. You know, so, I mean, it seems like it's this matter of, like, if we, again, like, finding balance, of having you don't want something that's too easily achievable or have people sandbagging when they're setting their goal because they know with certainty they can hit it versus, you know, stretch or trying to. I think I've heard the phrase a super stretch. Oh, wow. Beyond.
Jim Schleckser:
That's ambitious.
Mark Graban:
A stretch. I mean, what—what—what—what do you see as, you know, best practices, as you're advising or hearing from other CEOs about, you know, achievable versus a stretch that maybe, you know, the benefit of stretch goal is it pushes us to do more than we thought was achievable.
Jim Schleckser:
Yep. Yeah, I like—I like to build the base case and then build the plus-minus columns. So here's what we think we're going to attain. But if this goes the wrong way, we'll be down by 5%. If this positive thing happens, we'll be up by 10.
Jim Schleckser:
And we—we sort of. And there's usually a few on both sides of the equation. My sort of sweet spot is I want about a 60% plus probability. So if you think about a standard distribution in terms of probability of outcome, a stretch goal would be, you know, to the right of the hump. Right.
Jim Schleckser:
Or whichever way you're looking at the curve. Right. But a lower probability of success. But wow, if we happen, great. I prefer to project below the hump, meaning like a 30, 40% probability of not making.
Jim Schleckser:
Most of the probability is we're going to make it. If any of these good things happen, or maybe if a few of the bad things don't happen, we're good and then we can overperform against it. I think it builds momentum for your team. It builds credibility. And because you're transparent about the puts and the takes, you're discussing it amongst yourselves and maybe to your board or whatever, they can't say, “You're sandbagging.” My—
Jim Schleckser:
Look, I'm telling you what the ups and downs are like. You can—you can argue me to a higher number with a lower probability of success. That's an option. But here are the implications of that. Like, you could lose momentum in the team.
Jim Schleckser:
We don't feel like we're winning anymore, you know, and economically, they may not make their bonuses, which they all obviously want to make. So I like a higher probability of making than not. And then transparency on the puts and takes drive me higher. That tends to be a more robust conversation than, “Show me your stretch goal.” “I don't know, I'll take my goal and add 10%.”
Jim Schleckser:
“I don't know what to do.” Right. So I like that. And I think most particularly when I'm projecting revenue, I'll project expenses at that lower level as well. And therefore, when I get the extra revenue, it contributes at a far higher incremental profitability rate.
Mark Graban:
Sure, sure.
Jim Schleckser:
So now you really crush the profitability numbers, which is always a lot of fun for everybody.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, there. Anybody can add 10% to a number. But being able to think through it with some logic and business basis of—of what a meaningful stretch would be. I mean, one other question because I remember this is going back a long time for me now, but being in corporate settings where there were stretch goals and I think, and you read about this in the news sometimes, where I think the one risk with the stretch goal is when people fear punishment or being fired for not hitting the stretch goal. And you see all sorts of dysfunctions of people distorting the numbers.
Mark Graban:
In the auto industry. Certain automakers would pull ahead sales from the future quarter. They're robbing Peter to pay Paul. They're in worst cases fudging or distorting the numbers. Short of fraud, but dysfunction.
Mark Graban:
So I'd be curious what advice you would have to make sure that stretch goals don't turn into something really dysfunctional.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah. This is a question of ethics. And I don't know that I can build a management system that ensures ethical behavior. I mean, inevitably we count on the decision-making, the ethical standards, the morals of the people that work with us and for us. And so I think you just got to get people to go, “Look, I'm going to call balls and strikes.”
Jim Schleckser:
And that's the way it is. And if we're off, we're off. I'm not going to tweak the numbers. And I've seen organizations where there was—it was pretty overt manipulation of numbers to ensure bonuses. I'll give you, for example, they had some very bad debt, old stinky debt that had not been collected for a very long time.
Jim Schleckser:
Any reasonable accounting system would say after, you know, 90, 120 days, you reserve for that because the probability of collection is pretty darn low. Well, they didn't. They barely squeaked in and made sort of maximum bonus. Had they not—had they accrued appropriately, they may or may not have made their bonus at all. And I'm like, “Come on, boys.
Jim Schleckser:
And girls, that is just not cricket when you pull a move like that.” So it does happen in subtle and less than subtle ways. But I think you just got to count on the ethical. And back to the credibility thing.
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Once I've seen that, you're going to be unethical. Tell me how I'm going to trust you again.
Mark Graban:
Sure.
Jim Schleckser:
So it's a real problem. You go down that slippery slope.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. Well, Jim, I'd love to hear the story behind The CEO Project. Tell us about that and what it means to have a peer group for CEOs to meet.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah. So this goes back to Napoleon Hill, Think and Grow Rich. He talked about the idea of a mastermind group that you would have around you that has no agenda except your success. And they contribute to you with the group mind to come up with better ways to solve your problems, better ideas. They maybe hold you accountable.
Jim Schleckser:
That is exactly what a CEO peer group does for you. It's a mixed group of people, different industries, different backgrounds around you with no agenda except to see you do better. By the way, they're there for the same reason. They want to do better and they want you to hold them accountable. Most of the people that are in CEO peer groups don't have the most effective boards.
Jim Schleckser:
Most boards aren't incredibly effective, or they have no board, or they have a family board or whatever. And this supplants that. It provides accountability, pressure-checking your strategy, helping you bust through critical constraints that are stopping you from growing. And it becomes an infrastructure element of a high-quality CEO that says, you know, “Hey, I don't have all the answers. I need a bunch of smart people around me to help me.”
Jim Schleckser:
And this is a very difficult job because there's some issues we run into that we can't just go to our board and we can't go to the people that work for us. So who do we talk to? Well, maybe your significant other, maybe if you're lucky. But peer group can provide that on a sort of ongoing basis. And we see people join them and sticking with their team, with their CEO peer group for a decade or more.
Jim Schleckser:
I mean, it really does become part of their infrastructure, how they run their business.
Mark Graban:
And how large are these peer groups?
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah, we tend to keep them to eight. There are some other organizations on the planet that go bigger. What my view is that it's very hard to have team behaviors when you're above seven. Eight is kind of the maximum, think about squad size. In the army, it's eight.
Jim Schleckser:
They do that for a reason, because it works and so we're not busting any new turf here. This is an existing idea, but I think when you go up to 12, 14, 16, it's more of a crowd than a team. And here you get high levels of trust, high levels of engagement. Nobody can hide. So we like eight as a target number, sometimes a little bit smaller, but that's.
Jim Schleckser:
That's our plus or minus number.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. And does the cohort tend to stay together? I imagine once they've gotten to know each other, that they've built trust.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
That it's helpful to keep that, you know, not. Not add somebody new into the mix once that's really formed.
Jim Schleckser:
Ideally not, but, you know, and they do tend to socially bond and professionally bond. And the beauty of the business model is that creates a very sticky offering. You know, people. It's like you join a gym and you end up with some gym buddies that.
Mark Graban:
Right.
Jim Schleckser:
“Hey, you're going to be, you know, work out this week, right, Mark? I'll see you on Tuesday.” And you're like, “I got to go to the gym.” It's the same thing. They're going to show up for you. They want you to show up for them.
Jim Schleckser:
And so it gets very, very sticky. You know, once in a while, people do leave groups. I mean, that happens usually. And the number one reason for us is they sold their company for a big pile of money and they go, “Hey, I'm going to Tahiti,” or whatever.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Which is a great answer. But then we do need to replace. And so we do bring people into existing groups, usually because there's such a high level of trust and transparency already in the group. As long as you get a quality individual, they are very accepting of bringing somebody and people merge right in. It does not take long. If somebody's not a fit.
Jim Schleckser:
And that's really down to the leader to pick good people. They get, you know, they kind of get voted off the island pretty quickly.
Mark Graban:
So, yeah, they might fit better with a different cohort for whatever reason.
Jim Schleckser:
Sometimes that happens, we move into another group. That sometimes works. And also when people grow really fastly, sometime quickly, they sometimes grow out of their group. We do have larger company groups that we can move them into to keep them challenged the whole time.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, I mean, it makes me think of the expression that you hear a lot. It's lonely at the top. I don't know the origin.
Jim Schleckser:
It's popular. Yeah.
Mark Graban:
There's truth to that, it seems. Tell us about that.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah, 100%. Because you don't have people to talk to that really understand the job. I mean, even the best COO kind of comes from where they come from. They've never done the job of CEO. And it is a unique job.
Jim Schleckser:
So who do I ask questions to? Who do I bounce my thinking off of? Who without them having an agenda? It's the problem. You know, you go talk to your chief revenue officer, they all have an agenda.
Jim Schleckser:
It is an unintended bias. But they've got a bias in a group. They're neutral to your particular problems. They have their own bias because of their experiences, but they're not trying to get anything out of you except help you do well. A CRO might say, “There's an opportunity to bump my budget a little bit or get that salesperson, I want Topeka or.”
Jim Schleckser:
And so. And I've seen it, you know, in some organizations. “Well, there's no—none of those politics like that in my organization.” Let me assure you. There's always, whenever there's two or more people, anybody who's been in a relationship knows there's a little bit of politics in every organization.
Jim Schleckser:
It can be low, but it's there. And so. And you can't go to your board. Let's say you have a decent board and you go, “Hey, ladies and gentlemen of the board, I don't actually know exactly what to do here.” That is a career-ending conversation.
Jim Schleckser:
But you could have it with your peer group. “I'm really confused. I'm not sure what to do.” And they'll help you. And so that's what it creates is, I hate to use the word safe space, but it's a safe space, a high-trust environment where you can really get transparent and go, “Hey, I'm really kind of stuck and I need some help.”
Jim Schleckser:
And they'll rally. They'll rally.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. Jim, I know one thing that you advocate for when it comes to, you know, CEO effectiveness and I'm going to throw out. It's an interesting phrase. So I'd love to hear your explanation or some stories behind it. The quote unquote, lazy CEO.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah, yeah, the book is Great CEOs Are Lazy. And what I found, and I've interviewed thousands and thousands of CEOs at this point. What I found is the really good ones did not work 80 hours a week. They were very much in control of their time.
Jim Schleckser:
They worked 50, 60 hours a week. And literally I would ask questions, “How many hours a week do you work?” And if somebody says 80, I'm like, they're probably not a very good CEO because they're not in control of responsibilities in some way. And so I said, “This is wild, that the people that work less get better results.” And that was really the genesis of the idea.
Jim Schleckser:
It turns out that they're following a very well-worn path. There was an Israeli physicist by the name of Eliyahu Goldratt. Goldratt, yeah. You know, The Goal. He wrote The Goal.
Mark Graban:
Yes, right.
Jim Schleckser:
Gold. It turns out that his theory of constraints is a general systems theory. He applied it to a manufacturing operation, saying, “Hey, there's usually one machine that paces the whole factory. It might be—that might be whatever, but everything is controlled by how much I can get through the paint booth.” He said, “If you can open up the capacity in the paint booth, you get more capacity.” The entire multi—multi-million dollar plant.
Jim Schleckser:
Same thing's true in your business. There's a point of constraint, a kink in the hose, if you will, that if you can find it as a CEO and open it up, you change the performance of the entire business. Well, it turns out these really good CEOs that were working 50 hours a week, that's what they did. They spent 30, 40% of their time finding the kink and opening it up. And all the other junk that we do as CEOs, they shrank down into whatever the residual time is because they said, “Look, the most valuable work I do is find the kink and open it up.”
Jim Schleckser:
“Everything else is secondary.” And they subordinated all the other work they had to do, and that's how they got down to 60 hours. Like, “Not going to that meeting. I'm not showing up for that. I'm not looking at that report.
Jim Schleckser:
I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not.” So I can create time for this and I'll only work on the stuff that matters. So that's. Now you don't need to buy the book.
Jim Schleckser:
But that's the gist. That's the gist of the book.
Mark Graban:
No, I'm sure. Well, I'm sure there's. No, there's a lot there. I mean, I—I'm not. Name names and you might realize, or the listener might realize who I might be referring to.
Mark Graban:
So, you know, if a CEO brags about working 120 hours a week and bringing a sleeping bag because they—and they're bragging about sleeping overnight because they alone can—can fix things, you know, it makes me wonder how much is that really helpful? How much is that performative? How much of that is—is just ego driven?
Jim Schleckser:
There's an ego thing to say. You're sacrifice. There's an ego thing that I work really, really, really, really hard. I work harder than anybody else. I'm a superman or superwoman or I.
Jim Schleckser:
I'm like, you know, there's a story about, I can't remember. I think it was De Niro and Olivier were in a movie and De Niro seen where he's supposed to be really, really tired and just on his last strings. So he stayed up for three nights in a row and shows up on the set and he's like haggard and, you know, beard and Olivier classic, fabulous actor goes. “Or dear boy, you could just try acting.” Right.
Jim Schleckser:
And my point is, working a billion hours is just for show, man. It's all about the results. If you can figure out a way to get them done in 40, then I actually admire that more than plowing 100 hours at it because I'm sure bunches of those hours are not particularly effective.
Mark Graban:
Sure.
Jim Schleckser:
And you're not working 100 hours a week. I mean, you're not sleeping but 20 hours a week. I mean, I pulled all-nighters. I did not do my best work after an all-nighter.
Mark Graban:
Right. I mean, I think, you know, you're working with CEOs and when I'm doing process improvement work, I'm often working with frontline employees in an organization. And I've said many times, half jokingly, half seriously, that, you know, to a point, laziness and efficiency are the same thing.
Jim Schleckser:
Absolutely.
Mark Graban:
I think it's a question of like, well, what do you—how do you redirect the freed-up time? Like, if the issue is we're working overtime every day and we're burned out on that, the quote unquote laziness and efficiency means we can get our work done and go home on time. Or if we freed up other time, we can—we can use it in a beneficial way. We're not just sitting there scrolling our phones because we made things more efficient. But yeah, I mean, that's a challenge.
Jim Schleckser:
For a frontline worker. Right. Like, okay, you want me to be more efficient, but then what am I, like, working myself out of a job? Am I sacrificing my overtime, which I've kind of gotten addicted to at this point. So it's a hard conversation for frontline people because it almost runs against their own interests of job security and income, unfortunately.
Jim Schleckser:
I think you really need to do it. You really need to. There's a great Bill Gates quote that's in my book. Book says, “If I have a difficult task, I find a lazy person to do it. Because they'll find the most efficient way to do the task.”
Jim Schleckser:
So to your point, laziness and efficiency are combined. I'll give you another example. This is ages ago. I worked for a company that had a. We, one of our divisions supplied automotive parts.
Jim Schleckser:
Critical, critical automotive parts in these for carburetors. So that gives you a feeling how old this story is. And floats for fuel gauges. And union. Union went on strike and you went on strike. They had 160 union members.
Jim Schleckser:
We had no choice but to keep the plant running because, you know, all the big automotive makers use the product, need to be shut down without it. So management started running the plant and there were only 60 people in management. And so they're out there making product and shipping product and trying to do their day jobs. And they did this for about three months. And while they're doing it, they go, “We've got to figure out a better way.”
Jim Schleckser:
“We have absolutely no choice. We can't have a 160-job here. We need to figure out a way to do it with 60.” They did over moving machinery, modifying processes, coming up with better, cheaper, faster ways. Union finally came back, same amount of money they left on, by the way.
Jim Schleckser:
They didn't get anything. Ultimately we brought back 80 union members. So that's the point that they could have been working themselves out of jobs but they didn't because it was not in their interest to do so when there was a need to do it, you know, there was a burning platform to work with. Son of a gun. We can do it with 80 instead of 60.
Jim Schleckser:
Not good for the union, I hear you, but good for the company long term.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, yeah. And I love how you describe, I mean to me this sounds like classic process improvement that you're not going to double your efficiency by trying twice as hard. And I'm sure person to person, the management people filling in weren't as good at the job as the frontline people had been. So I think making work easier is a great motivation as long as that fear factor is put aside. So I've seen companies and I think things you read about companies that have used, whether it's theory of constraints or Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma or you know, a lot of these companies say point blank and they hold to it that no one's going to lose their job.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
Because of productivity improvement where you—they're going to grow the business. Maybe as people retire or leave voluntarily, we don't replace them. But, you know, the people working are not going to be overburdened. And they're not going to lose their jobs. So GM, I mean, that's where I started my career 30 years ago.
Mark Graban:
GM had the problem of a forever shrinking market share. They couldn't grow their way out of things and they had the union contracts and eventually went bankrupt. But sadly. Well, anyway, that's a real concern. I think even manufacturing companies, hospitals, and sometimes the challenge is, which is we can't get people.
Mark Graban:
That's the burning platform for efficiency because people are overburdened, working overtime. Let's make it more manageable.
Jim Schleckser:
We have one member who's in The CEO Project and they're in Savannah. And there's a gigantic Hyundai plant being built in Savannah at the moment. And they're like, there is this giant sucking sound of all the employees to go work for Hyundai. I mean, it's a good paying job, it's stable, I think. I don't know if it's union or not.
Jim Schleckser:
Doesn't matter. But they're pay. Yeah, benefits are good, the whole deal. Right. They're like, “How the heck are we, a relatively smaller company, going to compete with Hyundai?”
Jim Schleckser:
So they've been working hard on exactly that. “We've got to figure out a way to do the work with less people because we—we will not be able to get the people as that plant opens up.” And so, yeah, that can become the imperative sometimes.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. So I'd love to ask a couple of questions about CEOs, and we talk in this podcast a lot. And you did so earlier, talking about admitting a mistake, saying things like, “I was wrong.” And is there fear? I'm asking you to generalize, but is there fear that doing so makes them seem less competent to their board or to their employees? Does it—does it make them seem less credible?
Mark Graban:
Or is there actually a boost where it actually helps with credibility?
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah, I think it depends on the individual. And to some extent I think it's a confidence issue. And many, many CEOs have imposter syndrome. They're like, “Why me? Why am I here?”
Jim Schleckser:
“I'm not any smarter than, like the guys, like the people in my class might have been smarter than me and I'm running the company and they're not. Why?” So there's a confidence issue. And so they worry about being viewed as vulnerable or fallible. And so they strap on the armor and they're infallible.
Jim Schleckser:
I think personally that is a leadership style that's dying because people want to follow real humans that are fallible. And they, because they're fallible, they might get it when I make a mistake, which would be nice, right? Don't pretend you're perfect. Nobody is. I know that.
Jim Schleckser:
But we're not going to play this game. And so I think what I always did is I led with, “Hey, I make lots of mistakes.” And part of what I'm counting on you to do is to make sure none of these stakes become big and they don't get out into the universe. And so call me when I make a mistake, because I'm gonna. I'm going to make mistakes.
Jim Schleckser:
If you're pushing the point, you're going to make mistakes. I think the other element. And so that's why the CEOs don't like to. And by the way, nobody likes to admit mistakes for exactly the same reason. Jim Schleckser:
But see, and CEOs are just people.
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
But I think if you transform culturally, just change the words. A mistake is an opportunity to learn. And so doing the witch hunt, who's guilty, who screwed up, that's less useful. What you want to do is, what failed in our systems and our methodologies that caused this to occur, and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again? That's a way more interesting conversation to me.
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
So yeah, the mistakes—failures—are learning. They're not this… They're gonna happen, you know?
Mark Graban:
Yeah, no, framing it that way is really important. That’s what we try to do here on the podcast—is remind ourselves and remind each other. And even though, I mean, it stings to make a mistake, even if nobody else noticed it. And you're admitting to yourself that you made a mistake, that stings.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
Even if no one is punishing us, sometimes we're hard on ourselves. That’s human nature, it seems.
Jim Schleckser:
Well, and I think the educational system doesn't help us any. You know, you got to strive for 100. Oh, you got that wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Right? I got one wrong, I got two wrong. For goodness' sake. I mean, that's not life. Life is: I tried something, it didn't work out, and then I learned from it.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. I visited an organization once and they had cards. And this was in the context of, you know, trying to spur a lot of improvement and innovation activity. And, you know, these cards said: FAIL—First Attempt In Learning.
Jim Schleckser:
Oh, I like that.
Mark Graban:
And they were trying to remind—or like trying to shift the culture. You know, especially I think—you know, you mitigate the risk by trying small improvements. And if that fails, that's a learning, and that prevents trying to do something organization-wide that really bombs.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah. I love the phrase “fail small, fail quick.” So yes, don't make a big stinky mess, and really figure out as fast as you can that it didn't work.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, yeah. And the phrase I don't like is “fail early, fail often.” Because I’m like, well, no, no, no—
Jim Schleckser:
Right.
Mark Graban:
When you fail early and you fail quick and you fail small, you can learn. And then the point is to—that should help you succeed.
Jim Schleckser:
Yep. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah, I mean, that’s the whole thing. Like, I’m okay with making a mistake. Just try not to do it twice.
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Because that means you didn’t learn anything.
Mark Graban:
Yeah, for sure. So back to, you know, the peer group and, you know, The CEO Project and thinking about how it can be lonely at the top—that sounds like it would be a safer environment for a CEO to say things like, “I made a mistake,” or “I'm afraid I’m making a mistake…”
Jim Schleckser:
Right.
Mark Graban:
“Give me feedback,” you know, in advance, where maybe that could be prevented, right?
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah. Well, and the group, if they're good, they’ll go, “You know, Mark, you’re about to make a giant mistake. And the way I know is—I did exactly what you’re about to do, and it turned out horribly. Don’t do it. Here's what I think might work better.” And now you’ve got another path to work down. And you know, you have a choice. When you hear that, you go, “You’re wrong, I’m right, blah blah blah, I don’t want to hear you.” Right?
Jim Schleckser:
Laps down. But I think enlightened people go, “Ooh, okay. Help me understand why that didn’t work. Help me understand if there’s any differences that would cause my situation to be—” Okay. You go, “Nope. It’s the same enough that I better not do what I intended to do. Thank you.” That’s the perfect answer, I think. “Thank you. You avoided a big mess. I appreciate it.”
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
So Jim, I'd love to ask you a little bit about wine, you know, at the time that we have left. And being, you know, a certified sommelier—so I love wine, fortunate to have friends who love wine and will share bottles. And one of those friends is a working advanced sommelier, you know, he's a step below the even more prestigious master.
Jim Schleckser:
So one above me and one below master. That's a—that’s very, very hard. There’s only about a thousand in the world, by the way, of the master. Rare distinction.
Mark Graban:
Yes. So that is his full-time profession and career. I’ve also got a friend who, I think like you, you know, got certified as a non-working professional. So for those who don’t know—tell us, what for one, like, what inspires that? And what's involved in getting that certification?
Jim Schleckser:
So the Guild of Master Sommeliers has four levels: introductory, certified, advanced, and master. You may have seen the movie on Netflix called SOMM. If you haven’t, check it out—it’s a lot of fun, particularly if you like wine. And it talks about the journey of these people to become a master sommelier. And the idea is: a sommelier helps people figure out wine and really runs the wine and beverage program in a restaurant.
And in a very high-end restaurant, like a Michelin-star restaurant, they put so much effort and money and time into the food, they would literally not make a profit if they didn’t have a wine program. So the wine program is super important to make profit. So this is a really important person, and the goal is to be knowledgeable about wine so you can guide people to a great answer, and you can pick wines for the list that works with the menu, and so forth.
What inspired me is I always enjoyed wine, like you do. And I would go to dinner with CEOs—masters of the universe, you know, decision makers. Somebody would hand them the wine list and they’d get the flop sweat. They’re like, “Ahh, anybody help?” You know?
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
And so I began a journey of learning more and more about wine. I said—and when I used to run, I’m like, I need to have a race to enter so I have a target. Same thing happened here. I'm like, I'm learning about wine, I need a goal. So first, introductory, which I passed fairly easily. And then it took about two years for me to become certified.
And there are three elements to the test. There is a knowledge test—and I spent a lot of time in classes and books and really boned up on my wine knowledge. And I’m going to say a normal human being could not pass this test. It’s—you’d need to really study for it.
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Then there is a blind tasting component. And this is where they give you—in the case of certified—one white, one red. You have to analyze grape, country, region, quality level, and a variety of other factors on the wine simply from eyes, nose, mouth. And that’s not as refined as they are at master. As you go higher, they get weirder and weirder wines and they get more and more information required.
But fundamentally, a master sommelier does exactly what I did for both the theoretical—their theory’s harder, their tasting way harder—and then they do service. And this is where we wait a table like you would in a fine restaurant. And there’s, in my case, there’s a master sommelier there and placards—“mother-in-law,” “wife,” “guest of honor,” whatever. You have to serve them appropriately, like move around the table in the right direction, pour the right way.
And while you’re doing this, they’re asking you questions. So it’s actually a theory test at the same time. And it included things like, “I’d like a cocktail. I’m thinking about a Rob Roy.” “What’s in a Rob Roy?” You have to know what is in cocktails.
People don’t realize—sakes. You need to know sake. You have to—after-dinner drinks. And then they did things like, “I’m having scallops with beurre blanc. What would you recommend as a 2015…” da da da. “Because I don’t like that—what else?” And so you have to have a couple of possible pairings for that menu item that they’re having. And that’s exactly what a sommelier would do in a restaurant.
And I think the beauty of it is—from a restaurateur’s point of view—if you get somebody who’s certified or advanced, in the case of your friend, you know what they can do. Like, they can win a table cold. They can pick wines easy. Advanced could probably do your whole wine program. Pick all your wines on the menu—everything for you. So that’s—yeah, that’s it.
And it’s a great cert. And now for me—hey, I wrote a book on the topic. But when I go out with CEO clients, they hand me the list and I can give them a nice and interesting experience because I know a little bit about wine. Try wines they never would have tried. Pairings they never would have thought of. So I have a lot of fun with it—with my clients as well.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. Okay, so you said—so did I hear you right? You also did write a book about wine?
Jim Schleckser:
I did, yeah. It’s called Professional Drinking.
Mark Graban:
Professional Drinking. Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
A Spirited Guide About Wine and Spirits, I think it's called. And really, it's about how do you entertain around wine and spirits and not make boo-boos. And it turns out that’s pretty easy to do if you have a little bit of confidence. Doesn’t take a lot to do. Okay, here—I’ll give you—if you want my number one trick?
Mark Graban:
Please.
Jim Schleckser:
Okay. Number one trick: When you go to a nicer restaurant and have a sommelier—most people don’t know what wine they want, but they know how much they want to spend. Like, “I want to spend $100 for the bottle,” or whatever your number is.
What you do is—the sommelier will come up behind you, they're over your shoulder, and you run your finger down the prices. Now everybody at the table thinks you’re pointing at different wines.
Mark Graban:
Right.
Jim Schleckser:
“I’d like something from this region, please”—you get $100. Every sommelier on the planet knows—yeah, this guy wants a $100 bottle of wine. He says, “What’s everybody having for dinner?” “Lamb, rabbit, whatever.” “Wonderful—I’ll get you something from that region I think you're really going to enjoy.” You look like a genius.
And by the way, the somms really enjoy that because you go, “Oh, what fun. I get to pick the wine for this table. I can find something cool, different, that they never tasted.” And sometimes they go, “I got that one bottle back in the cellar—nobody’s going to buy it, but it’d be perfect for this table.” And you get a cool bottle that you never would have picked. So yeah, that’s my number one trick. If you don’t know what to do, just point at the price, and the somm will take care of you.
Mark Graban:
That is a good tip. And I had conversations—this is going back 20 years ago—at sort of, you know, it was like a local Whole Foods-ish chain in Phoenix. They had a really good wine program. And the woman who ran the department had previously been in California and worked tasting rooms. And I didn’t know—she, I don’t—you know, she was probably a somm at some level, but I didn’t know enough at the time to ask.
But we talked enough. And I’m paraphrasing, but she said basically: Anybody can come in and buy an expensive—ask for an expensive bottle of wine. Not everybody, but, you know—I mean, she didn’t find that to be very interesting. But what she loved was somebody coming in and saying, “What’s the most interesting thing I can get for $30?” That was a challenge that lit her up.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
So I—you know, because then it’s more of a challenge. And you’re not just pointing to something popular.
Jim Schleckser:
Yep. Well—and by the way, somms understand this behavior, which is why Caymus and Silver Oak exist. Highly marketed. Honestly, not the best wine for your money. Sorry, Caymus—they’ll never sponsor me now. But for the same money, you can get a way more interesting and better bottle of wine.
But people go, “Oh, I know that name.” And they just buy it. And they go, “Nobody’s going to argue when I bring a bottle of Silver Oak out.” Right? So yeah, I’m all—so I love her view. And I’m the same way. When I’m on the list—okay, we’re going to spend—you know, the Caymus is $125. I’m going to spend $125, but I’m going to blow the socks off with this bottle of wine.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. And—and so this is my judgment, but like, when you think about mistakes winemakers make—I like, personally, I think it's a mistake when someone limits themselves. And we all know the people who say, like, “I only drink big bold California Cabs.”
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
So my question—or asking for advice—is: If somebody were having a steak or a meal where a Cab—Cabernet Sauvignon—might be perfect, if they wanted to expand their horizons a little bit, what’s a recommendation that would also work well?
Jim Schleckser:
And “a slab and a Cab” is the saying in the industry. It is a perfect combination. It really is.
So—well, there’s a couple of ways you could go. You could do a Cabernet Sauvignon, but not from Napa. Go to Chile. Chile makes amazing Cabernet Sauvignon. You could go do a Bordeaux. Right? So that’s Cabernet-dominated, particularly Right Bank, which is interesting as well.
But if they like big, bold, juicy—which is generally New World, right, versus Old World—I might go to Argentina and get a Malbec. It’s going to be big and juicy. And Argentina makes a lot of steak, as you know, so steak and Argentina Malbec go great together.
And I might not even tell them. I’d just say, “Just try this.” They’ll go, “Wow, it’s delicious.” I go, “Yes. And it’s not—not a Cabernet, Sean.” Right? So that would be a couple of moves I might make. Try a different country they’ve never tried before, or try Malbec. That might be an interesting move.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. And then when you think about mistakes a somm might make—my observation, this happens, I don’t know, a quarter, a third of the time—enough to be not just a one-off occasion—where let’s say it’s my wife and I, we’re at dinner. She’s very knowledgeable about wine, and we might both look at the wine list, but seven times out of ten, she’s holding the list, she orders the wine. And you know who they give the pour to, to taste it?
Jim Schleckser:
I know.
Mark Graban:
Yeah. They're—sorry, I’ll finish the story. And they’re giving it to me. They’re being a little sexist or misogynist.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah.
Mark Graban:
She ordered it! I mean—and so a lot of times, like, if they pour it to me, I’ll quite literally hand it over to her. Like—not make a scene—but hopefully that’s a reminder to them of like, “Oh, crap.”
Jim Schleckser:
Yep.
Mark Graban:
Screwed up.
Jim Schleckser:
I had a woman—
Mark Graban:
I’m sorry, you were going to say?
Jim Schleckser:
No, no. I’m tagging on it because I knew the answer to that story. I’ve heard it before. This is a woman—very powerful, successful CEO woman in this region. And I’m like, “Linda, what do you do when the sommelier hands you the menu?”
She goes, “They never hand me the menu.”
I’m like, “But you’re paying for the dinner. It’s your meeting. Nine times out of ten?”
She goes, “Yeah. I’m a woman. They won’t.”
They hand it to some dude who works for me.
She—she makes a little bit of a fuss. She goes—she’ll take the menu, and she’ll go, “I want to make sure you realize I’m paying for dinner.”
And all of a sudden, that gets their attention. Right?
Mark Graban:
Yeah.
Jim Schleckser:
Like, the guy works for her, but the somm, like—right, you’re the wrong person here.
Mark Graban:
So anyway—so yeah, that’s mistake number one: who you’re handing the menu to.
Jim Schleckser:
Yeah, yeah. Absolutely.
Mark Graban:
Right.
Jim Schleckser:
Right.
Mark Graban:
All right. Well, that was—that was a fun detour, Jim. Thank you for—
Jim Schleckser:
You could do a whole show on wine.
Mark Graban:
Well, maybe we’ll come back and do that again. So our guest today—Jim Schleckser—he’s the founder and CEO of The CEO Project. Look in the show notes for links to that website, and I will put links to the books in there.
And I’m going to check out that book, Professional Drinking. I mean, I get the title—I like to say I’m tasting, not drinking, but maybe that’s being a little defensive.
Jim Schleckser:
[Laughs] Yeah, that’s funny. I just want the job. Professional drinking—I’m in.
Mark Graban:
Well, Jim, thanks so much for being a guest here today. This has been a lot of fun, and thanks—thanks for your stories and your insights.
Jim Schleckser:
No problem. Thanks for having me, Mark. It was a pleasure.