Olivia: Globally, companies spend over $140 billion a year on training and development. Yet separate research shows the average employee only has about 24 minutes a week for formal learning. Jackson: Whoa, hold on. A hundred and forty billion dollars for 24 minutes a week? That math does not add up. Where is all that money and effort actually going? Olivia: It turns out, mostly into what the author we're discussing today calls a corporate black hole. A void where time, energy, and money disappear without a trace. Jackson: That sounds depressingly familiar. It’s the project you spend six months on that gets shelved. It’s the mandatory training you have to click through, knowing no one will ever use it. It’s a feeling of total insanity. Olivia: You just hit the nail on the head. That's the exact problem at the heart of Radical Outcomes: How to Create Extraordinary Teams That Get Tangible Results by Juliana Stancampiano. And what's so compelling is that Stancampiano isn't an academic theorizing from an ivory tower. She's the CEO of a major consulting firm, Oxygen, and has spent over a decade in the trenches with Fortune 500 companies like Microsoft and Starbucks, helping them fix this exact problem. Jackson: Okay, so she's seen the black hole up close. What does she say is causing this corporate insanity? This feeling that we’re all just spinning our wheels? Olivia: Well, it starts by diagnosing the symptoms. And she uses a story that I think will resonate with anyone who’s ever worked in a large organization. It’s the story of a company she calls Omen, Inc.

Jackson: Omen, Inc. Sounds ominous. I’m already stressed. Olivia: (Laughs) It’s meant to be. So, at Omen, Inc., the executives have just spent nine months on research and analysis. They’ve decided to create a whole new set of sales roles to adapt to a changing market. The pressure is immense. They have a tight deadline to get these new people ramped up and selling. Jackson: Nine months of research just to create more pressure and a tighter deadline. Sounds about right. Olivia: Exactly. So a key executive, Maya, goes to her enablement leader, Jack. She tells him his team needs to get these new hires ready, but she also has to deliver some bad news. The feedback on his team's current training programs is… not great. People find them irrelevant. An executive over her head, named Rivers, has made it clear: this time, it has to be different. Jackson: Oh, I know this dynamic. Maya is the boss who feels like she's throwing money into that black hole you mentioned, and Jack is the manager who's supposed to magically fix a systemic problem, probably with a new PowerPoint deck. Olivia: You’ve nailed it. And this is the 'insanity' Stancampiano describes. From the executive's perspective, like Maya's, they're making huge investments but see no clear results. They hear complaints that the support teams aren't helping. From the enablement team's perspective, like Jack's, they are understaffed, overwhelmed with requests, and constantly creating content that they think people need. Jackson: And from the audience’s perspective—the actual employees—they’re just getting blasted with information. It’s like that other story in the book about the new-hire salespeople who get 50 emails about mandatory training on their first day. What do they do? Olivia: They opt out. They ignore it. Because it's overwhelming, it's not relevant to their immediate needs, and it feels like a waste of time. This creates a vicious cycle. The company spends more money creating more content that gets ignored, performance doesn't improve, and everyone feels like they’re going crazy. Jackson: It’s the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over—creating more training, sending more emails—and expecting a different result. And it’s not just a feeling; it’s incredibly expensive. That $140 billion figure is staggering when you realize most of it is probably funding this exact cycle of irrelevance. Olivia: Precisely. Stancampiano quotes one CEO who says, "We have people who create stuff to keep us compliant. Beyond that, it's not clear." There’s no connection between the investment and a tangible business result. It’s just… stuff. Jackson: Okay, so the diagnosis is clear and painfully relatable. We’re all drowning in ‘stuff.’ How does the book propose we break out of this cycle? What’s the antidote to the insanity? Olivia: The antidote is a radical shift in thinking. It’s the core idea of the entire book. You have to stop focusing on the stuff you create and start focusing, obsessively, on the results you want to achieve.

Jackson: Alright, let's define terms, because this sounds like it could easily become corporate jargon. 'Outputs' versus 'outcomes.' Give me the simplest, most non-business-school definition you can. Olivia: Absolutely. An output is the tangible thing you create. It's the email you send, the report you write, the training course you build, the meeting you schedule. It is the activity. Jackson: The busywork. Olivia: Often, yes. An outcome, on the other hand, is the measurable result of that activity. It’s the change in the world you want to see. An output is sending 50 training emails. An outcome is "reducing the time it takes for a new salesperson to hit their quota by 30%." Jackson: Ah, I see. So it’s like a personal trainer. The output is the workout plan they email you. The outcome is you actually losing 10 pounds and being able to run a 5k. Most gyms just sell you the plan and don't seem to care if you get the result. Olivia: That is a perfect analogy. And Stancampiano argues that most corporate departments function like that gym. They are output-focused. They measure success by how many training modules were completed or how many people attended a webinar. They're measuring the plan. Jackson: Instead of measuring if anyone actually got stronger. Olivia: Exactly. The book cites some really telling research. When organizations were asked what they measure for their learning programs, 59% said they measured things like 'audience reactions'—basically, satisfaction scores. Did you like the course? Was the presenter engaging? Jackson: The classic "smile sheet" at the end of a training. Olivia: The smile sheet! Meanwhile, only 18% said they measured factors related to actual business impact, like employee retention, time to proficiency, or quota attainment. There's a huge disconnect. Jackson: So High-Performing Organizations, or HPOs as the book calls them, are in that 18%? They’re the ones asking, "Did our new onboarding program actually lead to our new hires selling more, faster?" Olivia: Precisely. They work backward from the outcome. They start with the goal—say, "We need to increase customer retention by 10%." Then they ask, "What behaviors do our support teams need to change to make that happen?" And only then do they ask, "What is the absolute minimum, most effective output—be it a tool, a one-page guide, or a coaching session—that will enable that behavior change?" Jackson: That feels so simple, yet so profound. It flips the entire process on its head. You don’t start by saying "let's build a training course." You start by defining the win. The book has a fantastic quote on this, something like... Olivia: "If you can't connect your work and your outputs to a measurable result and outcome, should you even be doing it at all?" Jackson: That’s the one. It’s a question every single person should pin to their monitor. It cuts through all the noise. But this leads to the big question. You can have the best outcome in mind, but if your team is dysfunctional, stressed, or working in silos, you'll never get there. So how do you build a team that can actually achieve these radical outcomes? Olivia: That's where the most beautiful and, I think, most human part of the book comes in. It argues you don't just need a team. You need an ensemble.

Jackson: An ensemble. I like the sound of that. It feels more creative, more collaborative than just a 'team.' What does she mean by that? Olivia: She uses a brilliant metaphor to explain it: a jazz duo playing the standard "Autumn Leaves." They both know the song—that's the structure. They know the chords, the melody, the rhythm. But within that structure, they are free to improvise. Jackson: They can riff. Olivia: They can riff! The book describes them weaving in musical jokes, changing the meter, stopping for a whole measure and then coming back in perfectly together, all while laughing and communicating non-verbally. They are creating something new and exciting, together, because they have a shared foundation of trust and a clear, structured process. Jackson: A jazz ensemble, not a marching band. In a marching band, everyone has to play the exact same note at the exact same time. There's no room for creativity. In a jazz band, you have the freedom to add your own flavor, as long as you're serving the song. Olivia: That's the perfect way to put it. A 'Radical Outcomes' team is a jazz ensemble. They have a clear architecture for their project—the song—but they have the psychological safety to experiment, to contribute their unique skills, and even to make mistakes and recover together. Jackson: Psychological safety. That term comes from that famous Google study, Project Aristotle, right? The idea that the number one factor in high-performing teams is whether members feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other. Olivia: Yes, and the book connects to that directly. To get that jazz-like collaboration, you need that safety. You need a leader who, like a bandleader, manages the energy of the group, not just the tasks. You need clear roles, so the pianist isn't trying to play the drums. And you need what the book calls "interpersonal codes of conduct." Jackson: Like what? What are the rules of the jazz club? Olivia: Simple but powerful things. The ability to say, "I don't know." The willingness to ask for help. And my favorite, using the improv principle of "Yes, and..." instead of "Yes, but..." "Yes, but..." shuts down an idea. "Yes, and..." builds on it. Jackson: That's a tiny language shift that changes everything. It’s the difference between competing and creating. So what’s the opposite of a jazz ensemble? What does the dysfunctional, "marching band" team look like? Olivia: The book gives a powerful real-world story from a woman named Julia Rozovsky about her time in business school. She was on two teams. One was her official study group. They were all smart, ambitious people, but the environment was brutally competitive. Everyone was trying to one-up each other, shoot down ideas, and take credit. The team eventually dissolved, and they all lost touch. Jackson: That sounds miserable. And familiar. Olivia: But then she was on another team for a case competition. It was a more diverse group of people who didn't know each other. But they created a collaborative dynamic. They built on each other's ideas. They supported each other. They not only did great work, but they became lasting friends. That was the ensemble. The first group was just a collection of soloists competing for the spotlight. Jackson: And you can't achieve a radical outcome with a team of competing soloists. You just get noise. You get a lot of outputs—a lot of individual effort—but no harmonious outcome. Olivia: Exactly. The harmony is the outcome.

Jackson: So, when you boil it all down, it feels like a three-step journey out of the corporate madness. First, you have to look around and admit that you're stuck in a cycle of 'insanity,' where effort doesn't equal results. Olivia: You have to acknowledge the black hole. Jackson: Right. Second, you have to fundamentally shift your entire focus. Stop obsessing over the 'stuff' you're making—the outputs—and get crystal clear on the measurable business result you want to achieve—the outcome. Olivia: You have to define the win before you start playing the game. Jackson: And third, you have to build a team that can actually get you there. A team that functions like a jazz band, not a battle royale, where people have the structure and the psychological safety to collaborate and create something amazing together. Olivia: It’s a powerful and, I think, very hopeful framework. And Stancampiano emphasizes that you don't need to be a CEO to start. You can start small. The next time you're in a meeting or get assigned a task, you can ask one simple question: "What is the measurable outcome we're trying to achieve with this?" Jackson: Just asking the question starts to change the conversation. It forces everyone to look up from their little piece of the puzzle and see the whole picture. Olivia: It’s the first step out of the black hole. It’s how you start creating radical outcomes instead of just random acts of content. Jackson: I love that. We'd love to hear from all of you listening. What's the most 'insane' corporate task you've ever been given, the one that felt most disconnected from any real outcome? Share your stories with us on our socials. Let's find a better way, together. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.