How much has our understanding of choice evolved throughout history? And what has that invention meant to how we experience and acknowledge freedom?

Sophia Rosenfeld is a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on the history of things taken for granted. Her books, Common Sense: A Political History, Democracy and Truth: A Short History, and most recently The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern Life, examine the origins of ideas that have become so commonplace in our modern world, they can often go overlooked.

Sophia and Greg discuss the historical role of choice in consumerism, politics, and personal relationships, how choice initially got a reputation for being a feminine phenomenon, what choice has meant for concepts like freedom, and the political evolution of common sense in today’s world.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Has choice become the ultimate measure of freedom?

47:24: Choice once had this kind of very moral apparatus around it. And, as I mentioned, over time, choice became more, I would call, value-neutral. It meant pick what you like. I don't have to like your choices; it's just what you prefer. But the strange third twist in this story is that just having the choices itself started to become a moral good. Just saying choice itself was the good, and I think that's not always right because there are certainly moments in which choice is freeing, but there are also choices that are not freeing—there are choices that are contrary to our well-being, there are places where choice is not a benefit. This choice of any weapon to buy, for instance, is a different kind of decision than saying choice in profession. Your choice in profession has little bearing on me. Your choice in weapon might have a large bearing on me or the other guy down the street. So I do question the assumption that more choice, more opportunities, more options is always preferable.

How choice became the definition of freedom

37:22: In the face of the threat of communism on the one hand and the threat of fascism on the other, one thing that starts to emerge most strongly in the U.S., but also in other parts of the sort of allied world, is a convergence around political choice and commercial choice, saying that what freedom is, is having choice in these two different domains. And from that point forward, I think you might say that democracy and capitalism get wedded together around the notion that choice is freedom.

Is having more choices always a good thing?

42:42: We've now seen policies emerge on the right and on the left framed around choice. School choice is usually more appealing on the right, reproductive choice more appealing on the left. So, I would have said that choice is one of those things that we are so used to that it's a kind of unquestioned value across the political spectrum. We might fight about what should be and by whom, but we don't fight about the value of choice itself. And to this day, things are marketed all the time around choice. You look at billboards or look at advertising anywhere you are, and you'll see choice is still a really common term—whether it's banking, house cleaning, or anything else. That may be ending in some spheres on the right.

Recommended Resources:

• Thomas Paine
• Alexis de Tocqueville
• The Man Who Understood Democracy: The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville by Olivier Zunz
• Jane Austen
• Hannah Arendt

Guest Profile:

• Faculty Profile at University of Pennsylvania
• Professional Website

Her Work:

• The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern Life
• Common Sense: A Political History
• Democracy and Truth: A Short History

How important is it for business leaders to not only identify talent within their organization, but to take meaningful action to actually develop that talent? On the flip side, how handicapping can it be for an organization to keep employees who are holding the company back from success?

Bill Conaty is a top former HR executive at GE and co-author of The Talent Masters: Why Smart Leaders Put People Before Numbers. His 40 years at GE and his time as an advisory partner for Clayton, Dubilier & Rice has made him an expert in identifying and developing raw talent at an organization.

Bill joins Greg to share insights from his time at GE, emphasizing the necessity of integrating HR with other business functions and the importance of having a seat at the table. They also discuss GE's unique HR practices, such as talent development programs, the role of corporate audit staff, and the evolution of HR through different business eras, including the impact of COVID-19 and the DEI movement.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Candor comes first trust comes later

41:55: Candor comes first; trust comes later. In other words, we always—through our leadership development in session C, we had to say, "We always had the list of development need, one or two." And it wasn't that I needed to go to the next course at Crotonville or that I'm too tough on myself. It had to do with legitimate development needs, and you had to be able to trust the company before you could cite, you know, "I don't have great listening skills," or—and you had to feel like, "Whatever you stipulate, we're going to work with you on that." And we said: a development need is not a fatal flaw. A development need is only a development need as long as you address it. If you don't, it can become a fatal flaw.

HR Success Starts with the CEO

05:41: No matter how good of an HR leader you are, if the CEO doesn't have high expectations for what he wants out of that function, you're in for a long day.

What do we look for in leaders?

34:50: What do we look for in leaders? We started out with three E's—energy, energize, and edge—and so that's a green light, red light, yellow light. We'd go out to all the businesses, and we came away from one, and the leader had dynamite energy, could energize others, more than enough edge, and his numbers sucked. So, I said to Jack, "We assume this, but we need a fourth E, and that's called execution."

 Do you need a different kind of talent master to evaluate the talent versus the values?

53:26: I think the values piece is—I think it's fairly easy to identify, but it's fairly easy to identify. If you have a real intimacy in the organization. If you don't, if you're just standing off in the distance and applauding the numbers that are coming in, you can have a real kick-ass leader that people really don't enjoy working for and probably won't work for that long.

Recommended Resources:

• Clayton, Dubilier & Rice
• Jack Welch
• Jeff Immelt
• Crotonville
• Omar Ishrak
• Dave Ulrich
• Steve Kerr (bschool professor not coach)

Guest Profile:

• Author bio
• Expert Profile at Strayer University

His Work:

• The Talent Masters: Why Smart Leaders Put People Before Numbers

Contrary to popular belief, global migration levels have remained relatively stable. So why has it become such a hot button issue on the political world stage?

Hein de Haas is a professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam and an expert in migration. His book, How Migration Really Works: The Facts About the Most Divisive Issue in Politics delves into migration as a historical and ongoing phenomenon, comparing past and present migration patterns.

Hein and Greg discuss common misconceptions about migration, why people migrate in the first place, and what the actual impact of migration is on the economy, culture, and climate.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Political showmanship won’t solve migration

26:24: There are no easy solutions for complex migration problems. So that migration can cause problems in places where migrants concentrate, and not everybody is happy about it, particularly because employers reap the biggest benefits of their cheap labor—I can fully understand that. But the kind of solutions that politicians sell to us have more to do with bold acts of political showmanship than any really serious effort to control and manage migration.

Migration is part of development

15:07: We need a new paradigm, a new theory on migration—that migration is part of development. This is not about liking migration or not or denying that migration can also lead to tensions and problems. But if you deny that fundamental reality, you also see it in middle-income countries, where many governments have tried to stop or curb rural-to-urban migration. It has all failed.

Are politicians in denial about the realities of migration?

02:53: Both in the U.S., but also across the Atlantic in Europe, politicians have been basically in denial for over the last four to five decades about the realities of migration. That's the reason why these policies always fail. It’s a lack of fundamental understanding of migration as a social and economic process that needs to be the foundation of any policy. The migration issue has been completely hijacked by politicians, with pro- and anti-migration debates that don't really engage with the realities of migration. That huge gap is really the problem.

Recommended Resources:

• Economist Michael Piore books

Guest Profile:

• Faculty Profile at University of Amsterdam
• Professional Website

His Work:

• How Migration Really Works: The Facts About the Most Divisive Issue in Politics

What are the problems facing academic journals today? What changes to the system could be made to address them? How could being more open about studies that aren’t successful actually be a success strategy overall?

Faye Flam is a science and medical journalist, a columnist for Bloomberg, host of the podcast Follow the Science, and the author of The Score: The Science of the Male Sex Drive.

Greg and Faye discuss the importance and challenges of science journalism. Their conversation touches on the role of science journalists in translating and evaluating scientific data, the replication crisis, the influence of fraudulent research, the dynamics of public trust in science, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health communication. They also examine the issue with the growing proliferation of deepfakes, ‘fake news,’ and the importance of maintaining journalistic integrity in an increasingly digital age.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Recommended Resources:

• Replication Crisis
• Science Journal
• American Institute of Physics
• American Chemical Society
• Gary Taubes
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
• Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website

Guest Profile:

• Faye Flam Personal Website
• Wikipedia Profile
• LinkedIn Profile
• Social Profile on X
• Social Profile on BlueSky
• Facebook Page

Her Work:

• The Score: The Science of the Male Sex Drive
• Bloomberg Articles
• Forbes Articles
• Follow the Science Podcast

Science journalism and the challenge of neutrality

38:23: I think that it's harder these days to sell the kind of story that I used to think was, that I still think is, kind of the heart and soul of science journalism, which is to try to separate the science from the values, try to understand why people are disagreeing, try to understand where the science has evolved, where the science might have been wrong in the past. So even something as fraught as whether sex is binary, I think at least in the past, that's something you could tackle as a journalist without taking sides, but just adding clarity and adding context and saying, you know, these people disagree because they have different values and they want to use different language. They're interpreting things differently. But there are certain aspects of biology that everybody agrees on.

Rethinking failure in science

10:08:  People have to rethink the meaning of failure. If you have a hypothesis that's kind of a long shot, and you test it, and you do a really good experiment, and you find out the hypothesis didn't hold up, well, you've tested that. Maybe that's something you can rule out. That should be an acceptable, perfectly normal part of science. It's not a failure per se. It's just that sometimes you have to rule something out that's a long shot.

On the confidence trap of AI

49:01:  One of the hazards of AI is that people—it's so confident—it answers questions with so much confidence, and it sounds so smart that people just assume it's right. And it's often not right. People call them hallucinations, but it can just be, with some subtle thing in your prompt, right? I think there is going to be a period where people are seduced into believing AI because it can be so incredibly smart, and it makes these statements with so much confidence. But a lot of it—there is this kind of chaos to it. Little changes in the prompt will completely change the answer.