How This Podcast Could Fail
Brené Brown (host), Adam Grant (host), Adam Grant (host)
In this episode of The Curiosity Shop with Brené Brown and Adam Grant, featuring Brené Brown and Adam Grant, How This Podcast Could Fail explores brené Brown and Adam Grant premortem their new podcast partnership risks Grant reveals their 2016 public disagreement helped spark his entry into podcasting, reframing conflict as an origin story rather than a liability.
Brené Brown and Adam Grant premortem their new podcast partnership risks
Grant reveals their 2016 public disagreement helped spark his entry into podcasting, reframing conflict as an origin story rather than a liability.
They unpack how personality and communication differences—especially around sarcasm, directness, and interpretation—can trigger defensive spirals unless handled with care.
The central tool is Gary Klein’s premortem: imagining a future failure to identify risks, broaden perspective, and legitimize voicing concerns before it’s too late.
They apply systems thinking to show how surface-level disputes (e.g., logo design) often reflect deeper mental models, expectations, and mismatched definitions of “done.”
They argue success depends on alignment, explicit expectations, shared processes, and consistent feedback/repair—because they are building a business together, not merely recording episodes.
Key Takeaways
Use a premortem to make risks discussable before they become crises.
By imagining the project has already failed and asking “why,” teams widen peripheral vision and grant permission for quieter skeptics, pessimists, or critics to speak up productively.
Treat sarcasm and teasing as high-variance signals that require shared interpretation.
Brown experiences sarcasm as potentially sharp/unsafe due to family dynamics, while Grant uses it for levity; labeling it (“Are you shit-talking me? ...
Most conflicts are iceberg problems—fix the mental model, not just the moment.
The logo dispute wasn’t really about icons; it exposed different assumptions about iteration, stakeholder involvement, minimalism vs maximalism, and what a brand must communicate emotionally vs semantically.
Define “what done looks like” before work begins.
Borrowing from Agile/Scrum, they note frustration came from unclear expectations about how polished a draft would be and when critique would enter; explicit checkpoints prevent wasted effort and hurt feelings.
Alignment fails without systems, even when intentions are good.
They echo (and debate) the idea that goals don’t save you when communication processes are missing; shared rhythms, handoffs, and decision rules matter more as the team grows beyond the hosts.
Equifinality reduces process dogmatism: multiple paths can reach the same outcome.
Grant resists any “to succeed, you must…” framing; persuasion improves when leaders explain why a process is chosen, what alternatives were tested, and where flexibility remains.
Make expectations explicit—“stealth expectations” quietly sabotage trust.
Brown flags unspoken standards as a core failure mode in partnerships; surfacing the why behind preferences (time, anxiety, values, workload) keeps disagreements from becoming personal or moralized.
Repair is a capability, not a vibe—practice it continuously.
They see their complementary strengths (hard conversations vs apology/repair) as protective only if used regularly; otherwise conflicts repeat and accumulate into exit-level resentment.
Notable Quotes
“Do you know I started podcasting because of that fight?”
— Adam Grant
“It’s a great process, but it is the dumbest time to do it. Why would you wait till you’ve already failed?”
— Adam Grant
“Six months from now… it’s gone to shit. This project has absolutely failed. What will we be talking about… that we should be addressing now?”
— Brené Brown
“I think what will kill us both, and kill the business, is stealth expectations.”
— Brené Brown
“In any complex system there are multiple paths to the same end.”
— Adam Grant
Questions Answered in This Episode
In your premortem list, which risk is most “leading indicator” (earliest signal) that the partnership is drifting toward failure, and what would you do immediately when you see it?
Grant reveals their 2016 public disagreement helped spark his entry into podcasting, reframing conflict as an origin story rather than a liability.
How do you want to operationalize “disagreement from care and respect” in real time—what phrases, norms, or timeouts will you use when it starts feeling unsafe?
They unpack how personality and communication differences—especially around sarcasm, directness, and interpretation—can trigger defensive spirals unless handled with care.
On the logo episode, what would a concrete “definition of done” and iteration cadence have looked like (who reviews what, when, and at what fidelity)?
The central tool is Gary Klein’s premortem: imagining a future failure to identify risks, broaden perspective, and legitimize voicing concerns before it’s too late.
You disagreed about James Clear’s “fall to the level of our systems”—where do goals matter more than systems in your experience, and where do systems dominate?
They apply systems thinking to show how surface-level disputes (e. ...
Grant, how do you balance directness with kindness when speed and efficiency tempt you to omit appreciation—what’s your minimum viable ‘kind candor’ template?
They argue success depends on alignment, explicit expectations, shared processes, and consistent feedback/repair—because they are building a business together, not merely recording episodes.
EVERY SPOKEN WORD
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Get more out of YouTube videos.
High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.
Add to Chrome