Hello, and welcome to The Get.

I'm your host, Erica Seidel.

This season, we focus on the race to reduce risk when it comes to a

match between a company and a CMO.

How can you find out what you need to find out before saying yes so

that you make a match that sticks?

Today, we'll look at how someone's perspective changes as they go through

the journey from first-time CMO to repeat CMO to a role like CEO or CRO.

If you think about it, being in your, say, third or fourth CMO

role is a bit like being a Sherpa.

You've climbed a mountain before, but of course, each time you climb, the

conditions are different, the weather is different, the precise path you

take up that mountain is different, and the people you're with are different.

So you can bring a mix of experience and fresh eyes to a new scale journey.

But, with more of these scale journeys, you may get more cautious

about which roles you say yes to.

I have noticed that many CMOs who have served in the role multiple

times are way more aware of risk before saying yes to that role.

They can see around the corners.

They can anticipate the challenges differently than people who have

not been in the CMO seat before.

Today, we'll talk about all of this with someone I know who

will reflect on his journey.

My guest is Norman Guadagno.

He's been a CMO multiple times, most recently at Mimecast,

and previously at Acoustic.

Before that, he led marketing for Carbonite.

He has been a CEO as well, leading Norbella in the media space.

I'm looking forward to talking with Norman about a lot of things.

What does a multi-time CMO have to share with their pre-CMO self?

How has his perspective on risk changed over time when assessing roles?

And what has he learned about a strong CMO and CEO dance?

Let's go.

Norman, welcome to the show.

It's a pleasure to be here, Erica.

I'm excited to talk.

And I'm excited to take this journey up the mountain.

Excellent.

Excellent.

Well, let's, let's climb this mountain.

And I have to say that wasn't my take.

I did a previous podcast episode with a woman named Christy Marble, former client

of mine who had been CMO at Concur, and she came up with that model, the Sherpa

thing, and I was like, this is brilliant.

It's a, it's a great

right, right?

And You have, you've been in that Sherpa role.

So I guess my first question for you is just given the current climate, I'm

wondering, just let's kick off, like what advice would you give your pre-CMO self

today as it relates to reducing risk?

It's really a great question.

And there's two things that I would keep in mind first off.

As we go up that mountain, as we go through the room multiple times,

of course we learn new things.

But I also think the environment today is very different than it

even was when I took my first marketing leadership role years ago.

And you have to factor both of those things into the equation.

So when I look back at what advice would I give myself, or frankly what advice

would I give anyone right now, it's make sure there's a clear understanding of,

not just what the role entails, what the expectations of marketing are going

to be for the CEO and the board, and where the company is on its journey.

Because the function of the CMO and the function of marketing changes

fairly dramatically depending on where the company is in its journey.

Those are a key set of inputs to the decision-making process.

I would also caution myself, as if I could possibly caution myself, I would

caution myself to not over index on the ability of the role and the department

to make dramatic change quickly.

I think younger me felt that, Oh, that's something I could turn around

in a quarter or two quarters, or that's something I could implement in

a few months and we could see results.

It always seems to take longer for many, many different reasons,

which I'm sure we could discuss.

So I would give myself the gift of learning that things do take longer

than you think they're going to

Yeah.

Yeah.

We've talked previously on this podcast, perhaps you and I have talked about

this one on one, but this paradox of a marketing leader is both a peacemaker

and a changemaker at the same time.

Yes.

So you get hired into the role and it's like, Oh, well, we need

you to make change, but do it our way, and so you're kind of caught

between this rock and a hard place.

I think that's interesting, even just on the change side that you think,

like, oh, I can get this, this, this, that, and that done, but you've got

to bring people along with you, and

- You do and every culture is different too.

So as you go from company to company, you want to make sure you understand, is

it a culture that adapts well to change?

By the way, everyone will say that they do, although some will be

honest and say, ohh, maybe not.

Maybe we don't adopt well to change.

And there are cultures where it's difficult to get things done.

For any number of reasons.

And you have to factor that in.

I have been fortunate that I've worked in a diverse set of cultures

across many companies, and I've seen different ways in which things get done.

Then you also see the reality of, it's not just you coming in as

change maker, peacemaker, but it's most likely in many circumstances,

particularly nowadays, that there is a lot of executive change taking place.

As companies prime themselves for an exit event, there's often a

complete change out in the C-Suite.

After companies go private, there's often a complete change out in the C-Suite.

After companies go public, there's often a complete change out.

So each time, you're not just introducing one new piece, you're often introducing

multiple new pieces simultaneously.

And that puts risk into the equation.

Because I recall even when I joined Mimecast, about six months after

I joined, we hired a new CRO.

Who turned out to be terrific and I was a great partner with.

But I didn't know What I didn't know.

I didn't know who that was going to be.

I was fortunate enough to interview the candidates, but it could have

gone in a number of different ways.

So I got in the role and then all of a sudden, six months later, there's

my number one counterpart, the CRO, and we work together really well,

but may not have gone that way.

That often happens in companies, that you're moving pieces in

and out, and you're trying to find that elusive chemistry.

You're trying to find that way that you can work together and it, you're

trying to do it in real time with the pressure of quarterly results

and driving the right numbers.

It's a fascinating set of moving pieces.

It's truly three dimensional chess.

Yeah, it's like in, as marketers, we talk about A B testing or, A B C testing.

And this is like A B C D E F G testing, you know?

This, this is pure, multi-factor testing.

Let's change everything, every day, and see what happens.

Right.

Exactly.

So, do you think there is this arc of caution as you look

at the arc of your career?

Or maybe it's not just your career, but other careers.

Cause in my mind, it seems early on in somebody's career, they're like,

yay, I have a great new CMO role.

And they might not do as much due diligence about it as they

will for their second role.

Second role they'll probably know that due diligence, third, fourth.

Yeah, I would imagine like risk would, caution would kind of go up over time,

at a certain point, because I have CMOs who will say, Oh, I just don't want to

do this again after a certain point.

And,

have made that statement, I think, even to you.

It's one we use to, I think, to calm ourselves.

Oh, maybe.

Yeah, right.

Because people can still stick with it.

Then people can get to this point of, actually, I'll say yes to

anything, because I'm doing it fractionally, or I'm on the board,

or, I'm an advisor to a company.

So does that make sense, that kind of arc of caution?

It, uh, it

does.

Can you comment on that?

I like the notion of this arc of caution.

In some ways, it's like if you're learning to drive race cars.

If you learn to drive at high speed, I know how to do it in theory, I

don't know, I don't do it in practice.

But even as a regular driver, you find that you're often very cautious turning.

We've all done that.

Only over time do you find that it's actually accelerating into turns

gives you the necessary ability to actually go around the turn safely.

You're like, oh wait, I've always slowed down and it felt worse,

but in fact it's acceleration.

So you learn a set of skills that mitigate risk.

And when I think about that, that evolution going into a job after

job, you learn more with each one about the potential risks.

So your aperture is broader, but you also learn about the

mitigation strategies along the way.

So you know how to dig deeper into them, and frankly, you know how

to confront something that maybe you've never confronted before.

Because the first time you see a really wicked curve on a mountain

road, you're like, uh, what do I do?

But after you do it a few times, and I live on curvy back roads in the country

here in Connecticut, so I do this a lot.

You're like, oh, pshew, pshew, pshew, pshew.

I know exactly how to get around those, because you start to see it.

It's much like that in the job.

The first time going in, you're like, Oh, I know how to do marketing.

They just didn't tell you that fifty percent of your role as a CMO

has nothing to do with marketing.

Like, wait, I don't know how to do that.

I don't know how to do that.

I was just having a specific example of this discussion with someone who

works for me or who did work for me at Mimecast recently in terms of our

business development organization, right?

So I had, at Mimecast, I had a hundred BDRs globally working in my

organization doing traditional BDR, inbound, outbound, lead generation.

In talking with my BDR leader we were reflecting on the fact that it's

probably half the CMOs out there have experience with a business development

organization and probably half don't.

And if you're in the half that doesn't, the first time you're presented with

it, you're going to be like, Oh!

Well, they're just on the phone making outbound calls, or they're taking

inbound leads, and not realizing, in fact, the depth and complexity

of the reality of a BDR organization and how to manage it effectively.

I'd had one before Mimecast, but I'd never had one of this size.

I learned a lot of things.

That if I go into another organization in the future that has a BDR organization,

my skill level went up here.

And so, my ability to ask, hopefully, informed questions went here, so

that I'm actually reducing my risk by having more knowledge about it.

So it is this constant balancing.

Yes, you're mitigating risk.

Of course risk is increasing, and the environment's increasing,

and the demands are increasing.

But you're also, you're giving yourself a set of tools to navigate,

to ask questions, and to know how to deal with the new things that

you're being asked to deal with.

That's great.

Though, you've been a CEO as well serving marketers.

So that's interesting.

I'm wondering, has that changed your perspective?

Is there a CEO perspective that you have now that you think some CMOs are lacking?

Like in that conversation between CMO and CEO?

Yeah, it's an interesting question.

Having been a CEO of a small private media agency I realized

that my job was first and foremost actually a combination of business

development and managing the business.

I think that a lot of CMOs have not necessarily done the

business development part.

And/or thinking holistically about managing the business.

It gets back to what I said earlier.

The first time you're a CMO, you may not realize that only

half your job is marketing.

Half of your job is being part of the C-Suite, being part of the executive

team and leading the business.

And that requires a different set of skills.

So having sat in that CEO seat for a little while, even on a smaller

scale, I learned that I had to think like a business person first,

and in fact, not like a marketer.

That I had to be able to bring business development,

relationship skills to the table.

A lot of CMOs are out there meeting with customers and engaging, but a lot

are not, a lot are not in that role.

So then when you then have to work for a CEO, you start to think about, oh wait,

that person is doing this because they're focused on outbound business development.

They're thinking holistically about the business.

They're trying to think about their team, their C-Suite, and how to manage it.

As a CEO, you all of a sudden have a team that's comprised of multiple functions.

And they each have a voice.

And it's at a broader scale than as a marketer.

Where yes, you have multiple marketing functions, but there's a core there.

I think that every C role, everybody in the C-Suite should get some of

that experience in a different type of C-level or very senior role.

So they get more of that perspective to say, hey, we're gonna actually have

business discussions now, not a marketing or sales or a finance discussion.

It's a business discussion about the right way to drive the business

forward.

And that gives you a better perspective ultimately.

Yeah, yeah, that's great.

One thing that I've heard you talk about before is that the CMO role is on

a slightly different time horizon for producing value than many other functions,

which, to your point, if you sit across the whole business, if you think business

first, marketing second, you'll get that.

Yep.

But how should the CEO and the CMO navigate that?

Because I think that's where a lot of CMOs kind of get stuck because they say

yes to roles and the CEO thinks they're gonna just, especially in this climate,

like, Oh, you're gonna drive pipeline and drive revenue this year and it's

like, well, the CMO is also about driving revenue year two, three, four, five.

So how can CEOs and CMOs better have that conversation in your view?

It's a complex conversation to be sure.

Everyone brings an interesting perspective to it.

Fundamentally, I think the CMO has to embrace the duality of no matter what, or

at least most of the time, you're going to be asked to produce something short term.

Just the way business works.

And what you have to be able to do is explain, yes, I can do X, Y, Z.

But you also have to be right, clear, upfront.

There's a set of other things that are going to take longer.

And I want to make sure I lay them out right from the start.

And I give you my best estimate on how long this will take.

Oftentimes, and we can't avoid this discussion, it'll be brand.

"I want to build a big brand."

"Let's make the brand better."

Awesome!

We all love that.

But it doesn't happen overnight.

Everyone knows that, but doesn't know that.

You know it intellectually, but every executive, CEOs included, are under

pressure from someone else to get results faster, especially in today's climate.

You have to start to think about, there's not one timeline

that you want to talk about.

You want to talk about the timeline for things that will happen in months

and quarters, and the timeline for things that will happen in quarters and

years, and how do you balance those?

And how do you know that, I understand that it's going to take a while.

And this is something I've experienced multiple times in my career.

I have had the discussion with boards, with other executives, where I say,

this is the thing we're going to do.

We'll talk about brand.

We're going to invest in brand building.

It's going to take three quarters, four quarters, whatever

numbers I put on the board.

And then I also say, we need to have it be sustained investment.

If you lose your patience in two quarters and want to pull the investment,

we shouldn't do it at all because then it's just wasted investment.

So to try to put some context around it, it's like, hey, we need to

get the brand from here to there.

It's going to cost us X amount of money.

We're going to do it over the course of Six quarters before we can start to see

true - we're gonna do a brand study here.

We're gonna do one here.

And I'm gonna tell you explicitly, if you're gonna lose faith or if you're

gonna say, "Oooh, two quarters in I don't think we should be spending

that money," just don't do it.

Let's spend the money elsewhere.

Because it's not gonna pay off.

In fact, you start to tease the market and the market just starts to get some

exposure to you, and then you pull back.

So it's much better to be really clear on context.

Well, you don't want to make that long term investment?

Okay, let's put that into some shorter term stuff.

We need to do demand creation?

Let's do some demand creation.

We need to work on our partner marketing.

Let's work on our partner marketing.

Whatever other thing it may be that might have a shorter time span, and

then maybe we can get to that later.

and it's hard sometimes for marketers to make those statements, to say, this

needs four quarters, six quarters, eight quarters of sustained investment.

If you're not willing to do that, we shouldn't do any of it

because it just won't benefit us.

Right.

That then shows you as a good economic business decision maker also.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I like that, we talked about the arc of caution, but there's also

like this arc of CEO reaction, maybe?

Where the CMO could say, okay, in a few months, you're

going to start to feel antsy.

You know, you're going to start to feel like

- Yes!

- okay, we should be seeing fruits from this, and maybe we won't, so I'm here

to tell you now that you're going to feel uncomfortable, and we'll have to

navigate through this, and if you're too uncomfortable about feeling uncomfortable,

[chuckle] let's cancel it now.

Don't do this.

And that, Erica, is a really great way to think about it.

The CEO is trying to do many things, and it's a darned hard job, right?

Any C-Suite job is really hard.

The CEO is trying to do many things, and one of the things they're relying

on their team on is to give them, not just good advice, but to also frame

programs in the right context so they know what it means and how they're

going to get from here to there.

And to help them see what they don't see.

One of the things CMOs often spend a lot of time with the C-Suite,

with the CEO and with board, is explaining how the website works.

It's a common thing that happens all the time.

I and many of my peers and many people that work deeply in that space know

that we have to take into consideration that from the C-Suite and the board,

there's actually a completely different set of visitors to the website

than marketing is thinking about.

Marketing thinks about visitors who are primarily buyers or prospects.

The C-Suite, the board, they come in as what we affectionately call readers.

They read the website like a book.

And they go off and they read the competitor websites like books.

And then they say, "Well, this book was a lot more exciting than that book.

Can't you be more like that?"

And it's an absolutely fair question.

Except the bulk of marketing is operating on a model of, we know

visitors who come in, we know the paths they take, we know that a typical

website, just looking at, you know, the most recent one I've worked on.

On the website, there were 600 pages?

Of which 500-plus of them were not in the navigation.

Right?

That's a very typical website.

It's all deep linked pages that no reader will ever find.

But it's critical to how you nurture leads and prospects and

take them on their journey and get them to where they need to be.

It's all data-driven and all of that.

So this is an example of it's the marketer's job to help educate others

over the fact that, yes, you're reading the website is important.

And we want to address the fact that you couldn't find XYZ on there

and you saw it on another website.

But we also want you to understand that that's not our customer's journey.

So we have to create the right balance between those two things.

And this is just one of many examples of the fact that marketing,

like the trite and proverbial iceberg, is mostly underwater.

You don't see most of it.

You specifically don't see it in today's data-driven, highly-targeted model.

You specifically don't see it if you're another C executive in a different

department who comes to visit the website or signs up for an email newsletter.

You only see bits and pieces of it.

Part of the job of the CMO is to show the whole fabric of the customer

journey so that they can see, oh wait, I didn't realize marketing

was doing this, this, and this.

Oh, that's interesting.

Okay, thank you for helping me see and put those pieces together.

It's fascinating.

Yeah, if a company doesn't get that- so you're talking about marketing

educating the CEO and the rest of the C-Suite and showing them

really the full value of them.

But if a company doesn't get that, and if they are still stuck on, okay,

this year, this year, and not about future years, it feels to me like the

CMO has to choose between this deliver on current pipe versus stand up for

transformation, but risk leaving if they are standing up for transformation.

Any thoughts on that?

And have you seen that?

I have probably more thoughts than we have time at this point.

Let me reframe it a little bit.

Not all companies need a CMO.

They may think they do.

But sometimes companies would benefit more from simply an incredibly

strong CRO and maybe an incredibly strong revenue marketing leader.

The CMO is supposed to be the strategic C-level role that ties

all these pieces together - revenue, demand, brand, partner, right?

Sometimes companies don't need that.

Especially companies that might want to veer more towards like, hey, we

just need to crank through, fill in the pipe right now, and not worry

too much about these other things.

Then the question a CMO candidate or a CMO in-seat should be asking

is this actually a necessary role in this company at this time?

You're aware, as others are, that there are companies that

are eliminating the CMO role.

They're like, oh no, we have a head of brand and comms, we have a head

of demand or revenue or something like that, and that's sufficient.

And in some companies that might be sufficient.

So it actually goes back to the what is the CMO role?

I know from my own experiences that I want to be in a strategic role.

I want to be guiding the company strategically from the perspective of how

do we make sure our story is strong and distinct and it's out there in the market?

How do we make sure that we're getting the best quality leads

at the volume that we want?

How do we do all of these other pieces?

But if I see that that's not a good fit for me, I'm like, oh, hold on.

Maybe I should not be the person that's here.

And this is maybe the bitter pill that executives struggle with sometimes.

I've seen this in places across the board and I learned long ago that

many executives want to believe that they can solve any problem

that's put in front of them.

Versus believing that some problems may require someone different than

them, or a different org structure, or a different something else.

I think the smart CMO in 2024 and beyond is able to say,

wait, I can't actually solve the problems I'm being asked to solve.

What I can recommend is this, this, and this.

Or, it's yes, I can solve that problem.

Here's what I need to solve that problem.

Give me X number of quarters.

Give me X number of dollars.

Give me X number of people.

Whatever it may be, so that I can solve that problem and not just try to

solve all the problems simultaneously.

It is a very dynamic situation.

But over time I have found that I realize that not every company needs a CMO and not

every company needs the same type of CMO.

I'm different than the next person, than the next person.

We all bring unique skills to the table and companies go through

different parts of their evolution.

I was the right CMO for this period of the company, but maybe I'm not the right

CMO for this period of the company.

And it's on me, actually, to be able to say, yeah, that probably makes

more sense, and I'll be happier if I'm not here and someone else is.

That's just part of the, back to the risk curve, right?

You become, I believe, better at embracing where you can have positive impact and

where someone else might be able to have that positive impact that isn't really

what you want to do, what you're best at, or something along those lines.

Yeah.

It makes me think, listening to you that, something I heard once, which

is over the course of your career, your ego tends to go down because

earlier on there could be a lot of ego.

And so you want that role and you wanna provide all the value that you can in

that role, even if the company is not really willing to absorb or invest

- Yes.

- you know, for that value.

Over time, yeah, I think you're right.

I think CMOs would save themselves a lot of angst if they would

say, okay, this isn't quite me.

This isn't me.

And you're right, your ego is down.

I like to think of it as the more you fail, the more you gain humility.

And the more humility you have, the better able you are to say, Mmm!

Maybe I'm not the best fit here.

And that's true in life as it is in CMO.

We're not all the best fit.

We're not all the best dancer.

We're not all the best singer.

We're not all the best partner.

We don't all fit in everywhere.

You have to realize, if we are actors playing a role, at some

point, we're just not a good

fit for a particular role.

That's a good way to think about it.

A role for somebody else.

Yeah.

So let's look at this from the other side, the standpoint of a CEO hiring a CMO.

I'm curious, what do you think is the biggest risk a CEO should be

looking to mitigate when hiring a CMO?

Is it anything different than what we've been talking about?

I think it's a lot of what we've talked about.

if I were a CEO in a company hiring a CMO, I would be looking for the CMO

that knows the role that they can play.

And that's, that can come in many different ways and I'll circle

back to something you and I may have discussed before, and I'm

sure you get a lot in your role.

We all have roles.

Which is, over the past decade, I have gotten dozens, if not hundreds of

phone calls from executive recruiters.

"Hi, Norman.

Hi, it's Erica."

"Hi, Erica."

" Company X is looking for a new CMO."

"Oh, cool."

"And they really want somebody who can focus on brand."

Or, "Hi, Norman."

Hi."

"Company Y is looking for a new CMO and they really want

someone who can focus on demand."

That's one of the most key things when you're a CEO to be thinking about.

If you think you have a brand problem or demand problem, doesn't matter which side,

if your potential candidate's answer is, yes, I'm great at brand or demand, that's

fifty percent of what you need to know.

The other fifty percent is them explaining how brand and

demand are actually connected.

the one who says, I'm awesome at brand or demand, and who can't

speak about the other side, may not actually be the best CMO for you.

Because a brand problem or demand problem in the JD for a new CMO, is usually a,

this is what we need to solve today, not what we need to solve long term.

The smarter, better equipped, more experienced CMOs are often able to say,

yes, we see you have a brand problem or demand problem, and let me show

you how these things are connected and how I am really good at X, Y, and Z.

Second thing that a CEO really has to focus in on when looking at a CMO is just

understanding how do they think about the things that they're not really good at?

And that they're willing to, in fact, take off their plate.

A perfect example is product marketing.

Lots of marketing leaders come up through product marketing, lots don't.

Those that don't, may not have a real depth of understanding

around product marketing.

Are they willing to say, yeah, that's probably not my strongest

area, but I'd love to have an amazing leader in place there.

Or, I'm okay with that moving to the product organization.

There's any number of variables here, but I think the CEO who's looking

for a unicorn is going to get that, something that actually doesn't exist.

The CEO who's looking for a member of their team who's willing to say, I'm

strong in this, I'm weaker in this, I know how these things fit together,

and I'm willing to sign up for that, I think is going to get a better leader.

That's great.

Yeah, thank you.

Any thoughts on how a CEO can best demonstrate their commitment

and support to marketing?

Because a lot of times, CEOs will say, Oh, yes you can help define

what the role is, you can help define what the budget should be.

And it can seem from the outside, like, Oh, yes, this company is

really going to support marketing.

But are there any clues that that CMO candidate can look for to see

if that support is really there?

And conversely, what can CEOs do to demonstrate that support?

Yeah, that's tricky.

I think really that's one where the proof is in the doing.

Having worked for a number of CEOs, all of who bring very different skill

sets to the table, I don't know that I've ever known a priori exactly how

they're going to play out in terms of how they want to interact with

marketing, how they support marketing.

Because I've worked with CEOs, I've worked for CEOs who I was told in advance, Oh,

that person wants to have their fingers over all over everything in marketing.

And that's what they've always done.

And then I got to work for that person and I said, hey, that's our job, not your job.

And they're like, oh, okay, boom.

So you realize then was that because no one ever said that to them?

Because they never had a person who felt comfortable saying that?

And it is unique for each situation.

The dynamics are different.

What I think you have to do as a CMO going into a new role is

be as informed as you can be.

Then realize that on the day you start, you pretty much know nothing.

Then you start learning what's actually happening.

You make decisions along the way.

That's just the reality of it.

You and I have been involved, myself, in dozens of interviews and things like that.

You in hundreds and hundreds of candidates and interviews.

Frankly, it doesn't teach you a lot about what's going to happen on day one.

If you say yes, you just going on the, okay, this is not going to be horrible.

If they told you in advance, oh yeah, it's standard practice here that at 9 a.

m.

we yell at everybody, and then at 6 p.

m.

if they're not at their desk, we dock them a day's pay.

Okay, probably not a place you want to work, right?

But for the most part, you walk in thinking, okay, I see

there's some good, some bad.

It's a culture that does this or that.

But you know nothing on day one.

You begin a new journey then that you start to learn.

Then it's on you as the executive to either say, I'm willing to accept, willing

to try to make change, or I want to leave.

Yeah.

That's

true.

Right?

It's all you can do.

And then, show up on day one and take the little notebook that you

wrote all those notes down during the interviews that, oh, this...

toss it aside and start a new notebook.

Because then you're really in it.

I like that.

I like that notebook idea.

That's a great tip.

As you said, sometimes, these things don't work out.

One theme that has come up in this podcast series so far this season

has been about career trauma.

That might sound like a little bit strong, but you know, it's funny, if

you look on LinkedIn, if your feed is anywhere similar to mine, which I

imagine there's some overlap, right?

You find these very

- Yep.

- raw disclosures about career challenges and short tenures and

people being on the bench for a little bit longer than they expected.

So, I guess I've been thinking a lot about how transparent somebody should be about

their trauma and what is the risk reward calculation for sharing such trauma?

And maybe this is like small t trauma.

When is disclosing it intentional?

When is that impulsive?

Can it build trust?

Can it burden trust?

Any thoughts on this?

I have a lot of thoughts on this because I, like you, probably

spend a lot of time on LinkedIn.

I spend a lot of time reading those things.

I spend a lot of time writing.

I think it's a great platform.

I think there's a few things that come to mind.

I have the utmost respect for everyone choosing to present themselves the

way they want to present themselves.

What I find, perhaps, a little frustrating sometimes is what I

think of as performative trauma.

Where it's clearly just a way to say, oh, this was horrible, but I'm a great person.

I need a new job.

And that happens.

It's a choice.

Probably not the choice that I would make.

I think that I have mostly opted for a strategy of being actually exceptionally

thoughtful about what I post.

It's not that I don't want to post a, oh, this happened, or that

happened, or I'm supportive of this, or I'm supportive of that.

But I want to be thoughtful about the fact that it serves multiple audiences.

When you're trauma posting, you're not just speaking about yourself,

you're speaking about the company.

You're not just speaking to your peers, you're speaking to a vast audience

of potential people who you may work for, with, or who may work for you.

You're not simply just having a moment, if you and I were

sitting over coffee, to vent.

Oh, this place treated me horribly, blah, blah, blah.

You're actually putting something out there that has impact on many more

people and companies than you may think.

You may choose to do that as well, and again, it's a personal choice.

I think that the better choice is to figure out first, what are you

trying to achieve with a post?

If you're clear in that, work backwards.

Oh, does this trauma posting get me what I'm trying to achieve?

Or not?

And if not, then maybe it's best served in a different environment.

Most of us at the C-level belong to multiple organizations of

peers, peer huddles, groups.

Those are great places to have those types of discussions.

I've been very fortunate that I belong to multiple CMO groups,

gotten tremendous value out of having those honest discussions.

But they're not actually things I would post on LinkedIn, because

at the end of the day, especially as a C-level executive, you're

not just someone who's like, Ah!

XYZ happened, I feel horrible.

You're one of the people who's running the company.

So you have to take some accountability for that too.

And so it's really complex.

And I think that we've turned LinkedIn into whatever it is.

Just like on X or Instagram or anything else, it requires a certain degree of

thought about what is your intent and are you actually achieving that intent?

Who will end up seeing this?

And is that someone who you would want to have this discussion with?

I like that.

Somebody once said to me, before you say something or post something, use

the acronym WAIT - Why Am I Talking?

[They laugh] And it's true.

Right.

It's like, yeah, thinking through it.

Why?

Why?

What is the why?

Yes.

And everyone has their own perceptions.

Everyone, for the most part, finds that often times their perception is

valid and true and should be respected.

But time and context can also change how that perception may be

Right.

And so it's, it is very complex.

I think that we're in a world now where the ability of self expression

is tremendous and the opportunity for self expression is important.

As a fierce advocate of free speech, I think voices should

have the opportunity to speak.

But also, as a fierce advocate of being thoughtful in the impact

your words have on others, I think that you have to balance the two.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

I know we're running out of time, so I have one final question for you, and

that is do you have a favorite interview question that you like to ask people

who are interviewing for your team?

I have become the world's most boring interviewer over time.

And let me give that context, right?

I've now made a grandiose statement.

Why am I talking?

I made a grandiose statement.

Many, many years ago, earlier in my career, I spent an inordinate

amount, I should say, I wasted an inordinate amount of time thinking

up clever interview questions.

Why?

Well, if you go even further back in my career, when I was in graduate school,

I like wrote my whole master's thesis on the job interview, and what happens,

and all sorts of interesting things.

And most decisions in a job interview are made in the first thirty seconds.

You actually - has nothing to do with the questions that are asked.

People make decisions like that.

So, earlier in my career, when I was young and dumb, as opposed to

now, when I'm older and dumber, I came up with clever questions.

It was mostly about me, not about them.

Over time, I realized that that was not a particularly useful thing to be doing.

And so I started to whittle down, whittle down, whittle down, whittle down.

Now I'm at the point where I basically ask the same three

questions to facilitate conversation.

Those questions tend to be of the form are, me what you're interested in doing.

And I make that very broad.

Tell me what you hope to learn.

And tell me the type of environment you want to do those things in.

And I use that as the basis for conversation.

Because I've come to the belief that an interview really is a conversation.

And the more detailed the questions I ask, the less interesting the conversation.

I like that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's interesting.

Do you ever ask them think about that ahead of time?

So it's more articulate?

I'm just thinking myself, like I would be way more articulate

if I had noodled on that.

Yeah, I don't actually.

I don't because I'm also, I will admit that I'm also looking for

how do they think in real time?

Yes!

And one of the skills I look for in marketers is being a good communicator.

Regardless of the type of marketing they're doing, I think that

being a strong communicator is a skill I like to see in marketers.

Right.

So I want to see how they react and how they communicate in that context.

Now anybody who ever listens to this will know the questions I'm going

to ask and they'll be prepared.

They're not trick questions.

They're truly, I'm interested in learning something about you that

I can't get from your resume.

And hopefully that you're going to share with me.

When people tell me about the type of environment that they want to be

in, it can mean many, many things.

What I hear more often than not, are not in fact the type of environment

they want to be in, but the type of environment they don't want to be in.

Yeah.

Right?

So you think about those questions as door openers that can get

you to interesting places.

Yeah, that's great.

And, of course, when you do this hundreds of times, you can tell the

difference between somebody who can structure their answer very well

- versus, you know, versus not, and somebody who has a broad level

of thinking versus not, you can get the sense of their altitude.

I like to say altitude.

You know, how strategic versus tactical are they?

No judgment, but where do they land on that?

Right,

Thank you for sharing all of this great insight.

It's great to hear from somebody who's done multiple CMO roles, a CEO

role, and has all this perspective.

So really appreciate you sharing all of this with us, Norman.

My pleasure, Erica.

That was Norman Guadagno.

Next time on The Get, you'll hear more from me and from another guest.

Don't miss it.

Thanks for listening to The Get.

I'm your host, Erica Seidel.

The Get is here to drive smart decisions around recruiting and

leadership in B2B SaaS marketing.

We explore the trends, tribulations, and triumphs of today's top

marketing leaders in B2B SaaS.

If you liked this episode, please share it.

For more about The Get, visit TheGetPodcast.Com.

To learn more about my executive search practice, which focuses on recruiting the

make-money marketing leaders rather than the make-it-pretty ones, follow me on

LinkedIn or visit TheConnectiveGood.Com.

The Get is produced by Evo Terra of Simpler Media Productions.