I have a friend named Dan.
I've known him for years.
He's in his 70s, lives outside Washington, D.C.
He's in the crisis communications business.
Companies call him in when they have a big problem.
In fact, that's how I met him.
I was working on a story about one of his cases, and he called me up.
Dan and I talk all the time.
And last fall, he said something to me in passing about having to go for a bunch of tests.
He didn't say why.
It didn't seem like a big deal.
And last May, my internist told me that he was pretty sure I had prostate cancer.
And for me it was a I can't say it was a nothing reaction, but it was certainly a very modest reaction.
I said to him, isn't this the minor league of cancers?
And isn't it a rite of passage if you're a man my age?
And that's how I thought about it.
And it was reinforced when I connected with a urologist who said to me anytime in the next few months, have an MRI.
So I thought of it as a minor thing, and my first contact with my expert reinforced that.
So I didn't even bother to do anything until August, from May to August.
And I go from a blood test to an MRI to a biopsy to a PET scan.
And then it was, yeah, you got it.
And then the next deal was you should just go and get some radiation and some hormone therapy.
And I had to draw it out of the physician, and it was a casual matter of fact.
And that was sort of dumped in my lap at that point.
But at a certain point, something nagged at him.
He wasn't sure why, since everything thus far had been straightforward.
So he started calling around.
But as I was going through it because of my work and friends, I've had lots of health clients and education clients.
As you know, I asked somebody just to look at it to make sure there wasn't something.
And I was even embarrassed and hesitant to ask because I thought it's such a minor problem.
It felt like an imposition.
And my friend wanted to do it.
And I was even hesitant and reluctant.
And a doctor, which I will name Dr. Master at Emory, looked at it and said, you have a big problem.
You have an urgent problem.
And it was like that.
And he said, if you were my patient, I would have had you in my surgical suite last week.
But you have an urgent matter.
My name is Malcolm Gladwell.
You're listening to Revisionist History, my podcast about things overlooked and misunderstood.
This episode, where we explore how and when trust decisions are made, is sponsored by PayPal Open.
Trusted by consumers, built for all business.
For over 25 years, they've been at the forefront of commerce, helping merchants of all sizes grow.
So wherever commerce moves next, you can rest assured PayPal Open has your back.
Head to paypalopen.com to learn more.
Over several episodes, we'll dive into the topic of trust where it comes from, the moment it's earned and how we decide who to trust or not.
And I wanted to start with the story of my friend Dan who, out of the blue, one day was told that a problem he thought was routine was actually threatening his life.
And you had to decide, under the most emotionally overwhelming circumstances imaginable, who to trust.
He looked at my files, looked at my data and said, you have a big problem.
And he said, others will tell you that you don't, but I'm telling you, you do.
One of the many interesting things about Dan is that if I told you his full name and you Googled him, almost nothing would come up.
He doesn't advertise.
He doesn't give interviews.
He doesn't go to fancy galas.
There are no pictures of him anywhere.
He's almost invisible.
But in the very rarefied world of Fortune 500 companies and CEOs and political bigwigs, everyone knows Dan.
Because he's the guy you call when you have a problem you don't know how to deal with.
For the past nearly 40 years, I have lived...
That's what I refer to as the intersection of bad luck and bad judgment.
I help people who have managed to get themselves into really serious trouble.
The kind of trouble that is career-defining can be threatening to the existence of a business brings a level of scrutiny from the Justice Department or Congress or media that is inescapable.
Usually, to borrow the words of Hank Williams, these are folks who see their name at the top of the page.
Mm-hmm.
And you are.
You're not going to blow your own horn, but literally like if some big shot person gets in trouble.
You're like, it's like Ghostbusters.
It's like Dan gets the call.
You get the first call as far as I can tell.
For the last 25, 30 years, I get the call.
Yeah.
And there have been many times where I will see a story break and I'm automatically processing it, reacting.
What do I think?
What do I think is going on?
And in the back of my mind, I'm thinking I might get a call.
In many cases, I do get a call.
And whether it's the General Motors bankruptcy or the Paterno Penn State case or the BP oil spill, the Equifax data breach, you know either.
Limits of what I can say about what I did, but I get the call.
Now, why do—let's talk about this in the context of trust.
So you have spent your life walking into boardrooms, executive suites.
What have you to talk to people who, in most cases, you have never met before?
Right.
So people just know you by reputation.
Correct.
Why do they trust you?
It's an interesting thing.
I've thought about it sometimes because I've wondered about misplaced trust.
The genuine trust comes through the process.
It isn't in the beginning.
It's hope.
And it's panic and it's fear.
And they've been told by somebody that they do trust, this is the guy you need.
You know, they're in such a difficult spot.
They don't know where to turn.
They are desperate to find somebody who can help them.
You know, an irony for me in my medical situation is I used to say to clients sort of jokingly that I'm a urologist.
And that I'm the person you don't really want to see.
But when you need to see, there isn't anything more important.
You want to see that urologist and you want that problem solved.
There is a sense of urgency that is focusing in a way that nothing else matters.
And then I end up in this situation, a situation needing my urologist.
But it is what I know, is they know quickly if they can trust me.
They can tell your tone.
The first things you say are so critically important.
The manner, your style, your sense of confidence, all those things communicate absolutely instantly.
People are processing, is this a person in the most critical situation of my career?
Should I give them time?
Should I give them space?
Should I pay attention to what they're saying?
And what is it in that moment?
Are you, if you had to summarize as simply as possible what you're bringing to them in that moment, what is it?
It's a good question.
It's a hard question.
Because as I've explained, I will be the least knowledgeable person in any room I'm in.
And partly it's because I'm in the rooms on calls, in meetings, in boardrooms with people who are phenomenally experienced, capable, educated, credentialed, leading scientists, engineers, MBAs, lawyers, CEOs, board chairs.
Tremendously accomplished people.
And they have a world of advisors around them.
They don't elect for counsel.
In-house counsel on the communications front marketing, legal outside advisors, business consultants.
So what do I bring?
I don't have any of those credentials.
I bring a depth of experience of being in truly, truly difficult situations hundreds of times where the stakes are so big and the pressure is so great.
I think if I have a particular skill, it is synthesizing, clarifying.
I hope and believe that I bring a common sense perspective to it, which relates to the clarity.
And I want to help them prioritize what they're doing and how they're processing it.
And then inevitably I'm involved in what do you say about it?
What do you say?
Who says it?
When do you say it?
How do you communicate that?
And that it can sound easy.
But then you've got all the technical aspects, the factual side of that.
You've got the legal considerations, the regulatory considerations, and all those pressures are there.
How can you help them Fight through that and get them to say something that real people can understand?
There's an honesty and integrity and a value to it.
In a meeting with a client, have you ever raised your voice?
No.
You do have speaking of why it is people trust you.
You do radiate a kind of calm, and there's something dispassionate about the way you see the world.
And I'm imagining you're dealing with people who are often highly emotional.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I'm in a room where there's always lots of screaming.
There's jockeying.
People are desperate to sort of seek an advisory role.
Others are trying to get out of it.
There are people who are trying to take credit and there are people trying to um, lay blame and there's just tremendous emotion.
You know when i what i know.
I'll just tell you a few things i i really have never talked about.
I need to get to a point where the ceo will tell me anything, And I mean tell me the personal side, because the personal emotional toll of these things is never really factored in and it plays a huge part in what they're going through.
So it's not as much what I say as what I hear.
I want them to feel, if they reach the point where they want to truly confide in me, then I know.
I'm going to play a role.
The other thing that I know is it is absolutely essential for me to be candid in my very first conversations really candid.
So you mentioned earlier about you tell them how bad it is.
In a sense, I do.
I'm not telling them something they don't know.
But I want them to know two things.
That I have a sense of the situation without all the factual command that they have.
I have a sense of it.
And that I am going to be absolutely direct with them.
I'm not trying to shock.
I'm not trying to... make them feel worse, but I'm unafraid to tell them what I think.
And in those first, literally those first conversations, it's critical to your role.
So you go and see Dr. Master, and the tables are turned.
Dan had become the client, the person in a state of emotional distress and confusion, talking to a stranger and trying to decide whether to trust him.
We'll be right back.
This is fascinating, though, Dan, because You are in a moment.
There's a moment here when you start to treat this problem you're having, in the same way that you actually said this to me.
There was a moment when I started to treat this problem.
I understood this was no different from the problems I deal with in my work.
Yeah, that's when this whole thing turned.
When do you have that sense of, oh, this is something I've been doing my whole life?
Well, so Dr Master is telling me I have a serious problem that needs to be addressed and that I need surgery.
But he's not the one to do it.
Then I followed up and I talked to two surgeons who said to me, surgery is out of the question, can't be done.
And that my problem was a lot more complicated, a lot more advanced.
And now the script is flipped, or changed dramatically.
We've gone from doctors shrugging to doctors saying it's so bad we don't even think we can do surgery.
Right.
And when they say that, so what are they telling you?
Your options are, at that moment, that you're going to need all the treatments that are available.
And they kept saying Malcolm, it's a very interesting thing because you know I pay again.
It was my instincts.
I listen to exactly what they're saying and the way they say it and the order in which they're saying it.
The first thing they would say to me is we can keep you alive.
And that was meant as a reassuring message and it wasn't.
Not because I feared death, but because I thought they thought that I feared death.
And what I was worried about was quality of life more than length of life.
And consistently, it was about we're going to keep you alive.
We can keep you alive.
And then it was, but surgery is not an option.
You're too far gone.
And then it was a radiation, extensive hormones the rest of my life.
And chemotherapy and an ordeal that would be.
Look, I'm grateful for anything but exceedingly unpleasant a life that was tremendously compromised.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
So I talked to these surgeons, and their language was, one surgeon said, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Immediately after he told me, you know, you can stay alive.
You don't want the surgery.
He said, I would not want to do it.
But he said, I'll do it if you want me to.
Oh, goodness.
And I don't, you know, but he literally said, I'll do it if you really want me to.
And, you know, no one, of course, is thinking of that.
A second surgeon that I talked to kept saying, and I'm not exaggerating.
I think he said it.
I made notes seven times in my video chat with him.
He said, it's at least 90% that I will not be successful.
And he said, it's probably below, it's probably single digits to have any chance of success here.
And he was so worried that I wasn't hearing that, he kept repeating it over and over and over again.
So, after I talked to them, I talked to another doctor who said to me finally, the magical message for me, which is you're the only one who can figure out what to do here, Dan.
The doctors can't figure this out for you.
And I immediately understood what that meant.
And I was immediately comfortable.
I thought, The stress, interestingly, the challenge was great, but the stress receded.
I thought, I know this.
I know exactly what he's saying.
What did he mean?
Not that I had been talking to incompetent doctors.
Not that I was getting bad advice can argue about elements of it but that it is a problem that doesn't have necessarily obvious, clear advice attached to it.
That what no one had said, but which I figured out, the tests are not clear.
They're not definitive.
They're not perfect.
And that the science is incredibly complicated.
And that I could get extremely accomplished people from different fields oncologists pathologists, surgeons looking at this.
And they could legitimately come to a wide range of different views.
I thought, I've lived my life in that room.
I know what that means.
Mm-hmm.
So what was your next step?
Wait, at the moment he says that, so that's the moment where you say, okay, I've been here before.
No, I know.
I know the deal.
He was in a crisis, and what had he spent his entire life doing?
Solving crises.
What was a change in your perspective at that moment?
Did you, so you said, had you... Tremendous comfort.
Yeah.
It was, it was, I am 100% confident and comfortable making this decision myself.
Not because I thought I would be perfect. or that I knew more than the doctors.
I knew that I didn't.
But that I knew the right process to go through to arrive at the best conclusion I could arrive at.
And it was a tremendous calming experience for me.
But I was blessed because of this experience.
Nothing I'd ever planned on, nothing I would have ever thought about when I started this.
But I've been through it dozens and dozens and dozens of times on incredibly complicated high-stakes issues careers, billions of dollars.
And... that I had a network of people that I could call on for perspective.
So I knew I would get good advice.
So from that moment, I just said, this is my newest case assignment.
First trust was misplaced trust.
Second trust stage was, you can trust yourself.
I, Dan, can trust myself on this.
I can trust myself in this process.
Yeah.
So he started over, doing exactly the thing he always does when he takes on a new case.
He read everything there was to read.
He went through his medical records with a fine-tooth comb flagging the things that he didn't understand or that needed clarification.
He was guided by one of the foundational principles of his work.
First facts are always wrong.
Always wrong.
Always wrong.
Always.
Wait, explain that a little bit because it's super relevant here.
Because in your case, the first facts are wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Why are first facts wrong?
Well, it's the kind of thing I had to learn through experience.
Again, you're in a room.
You have brilliant doctors, brilliant engineers, MBAs, fabulous lawyers, outside counsel.
And so when they're telling you something, you believe it.
You're based on their credibility, their integrity, their experience.
The problem is where do they get what they know?
In a crisis, it's coming too fast.
How is it being processed?
How thorough is it?
How much can you know?
And how's it being interpreted?
Who's interpreting it?
And sometimes there could be some obvious bias.
Sometimes there's unintentional bias.
But what I always know is you don't have it all.
What you think you have, part of it's wrong.
And you need to be extremely careful decisions you're making based on those facts and what you're saying.
Because you're going to be reversing some of those decisions.
You're going to be eating some of those words.
And Malcolm, I never even thought about that in my case.
I did what all my clients do.
Well, I've got serious lab tests.
I've got important tests. experienced doctor.
I've got other experts who have looked at it.
Surely these things are right.
You can rely on them.
And I did.
And I was absolutely wrong.
What he learned was that the tests that everyone was using to make sense of his case—where was his cancer, how bad was it?
How much had it spread—were flawed.
Not because of anyone's incompetence, but just because trying to get an accurate picture of cancer when you first find it is really, really hard.
And that what happens is when doctors speak to their patients, they sometimes forget to communicate this fact.
They pretend that they know something for certain when they actually don't.
Which meant that you couldn't put your trust in the results of biopsies and scans.
You were of necessity in the world of subjectivity and judgment.
And Dan knew all about the world of subjectivity and judgment.
It was where he had spent his entire career.
Then, when he felt that he was at least informed enough to ask the right questions, he put together a list of doctors he wanted to interview, put everything on hold for two months and had a Zoom call with one specialist after another.
So you go out.
How many doctors do you interview?
I had conversations with 18 doctors.
18?
18.
And of those 18, how many told you, can you kind of quantify what they told you?
Like, how many told you surgery or treatment?
15 told you what?
Don't do surgery.
Don't do surgery.
Okay.
One was split and two said yes.
Tell me about the two who said yes.
It was and I never shared the information between the two of them.
I want to just objective views.
And they both said almost exactly the same thing, almost exactly the same way.
And they said they both acknowledged that.
I'm certain this will be a distinct minority of views that you're going to hear.
If you talk to other people, almost anybody else will tell you not to do surgery and that you can't do surgery.
But they're wrong.
And a factor in it was they also both said your chance of beating this isn't great, but it's non-existent if you don't have surgery.
And mattered a lot to me.
And you know the other calls again good doctors, experienced doctors.
But saying likelihood of being successful was nothing.
We know from the start we're not going to be able to get it all out.
It's going to give you a lot of difficult side effects.
Then you're going to have to start these other treatments.
The side effects for the follow-up treatments will be compounding with the side effects you're having after surgery.
And I remember an oncologist saying to me, it is the absolute worst course of action you can take.
So what was different about these two guys who disagreed?
It's a funny thing because it really does relate to my life experience and my work.
Confident, clear, concise, unemotional, definitive.
And convincing.
Not just words and manner, but factually the way they presented it.
And listening to that combined with, I had already reached the point with all the information I had, realizing that it's cloudy information and differences of opinion.
And I thought, I know that.
I'm comfortable with that now.
And that I thought based here.
You know I don't think I ever took a science class in high school or college, but the science convinced me there was a very good chance that these doctors were wrong, that these tests had flaws, that some of it just didn't add up in the ways that it had been looked at.
And I combined my own instincts, my own reading and information with the way these two doctors talked.
And I thought, I'll bet my life on them.
Dan ended up choosing a surgeon at Duke University.
He wasn't a prostate specialist.
He was just someone who did complex cancer cases of all kinds.
He was used to looking at things that seemed impossible.
He has a different lens.
Yes.
He's seen a broader range, presumably, of problematic things.
And again, that's something I can relate to.
I'm in rooms.
You know, years ago Malcolm, the CEO of Disney, said we would never be good at handling a crisis because we've never had one.
And I thought, that can't be true.
That can't be true.
You're Disney.
And what I've realized in most of the rooms I've ever been in They've never had a bet your career bet the company crisis.
We think that everybody has.
You've had all kinds of tests, but for most people, it's a new experience.
Or the stakes are so big.
Are you talking about the doctor?
So in this case, the doctor had seen...
Yes, and I'm saying that.
I have been in hundreds of boardrooms where I'm looking at a CEO and he or she is wondering Is this the end of my career?
Is this how I'm going to be defined?
Am I going to lose my net worth?
Am I going to go to jail?
Am I going to be humiliated in front of Congress?
Am I going to be embarrassed with my family?
That fear.
It's there.
And, you know, I've had them say to me, my God, my communications people are under their desks.
They're scared to death.
My lawyers are arguing with each other.
My board, strong differences of opinions there.
And then you know what you also have in those situations is they've got their friends, their neighbors, their country club colleagues, their business peers and friends.
Somebody inevitably says to me, my wife's brother's neighbor's cousin says I should do X.
You've got it coming in from all directions.
So you're trying to figure out, who do I trust?
As I've communicated to you before, the facts are wrong, I 100% guarantee you.
You don't have all the facts and some of the facts you think you have are wrong.
So how am I supposed to make a decision now?
And so I end up with this surgeon and he broke it into two pieces.
Can I do the surgery technically?
Absolutely.
Yes.
Is the surgery going to be a success?
Different question.
Different question.
Will it save you?
That's a whole separate conversation from can I perform the procedure and succeed at that so that you can have the chance to talk about these other things?
So his first was 100% yes.
His second was yes.
50-50 that it's going to help you at best.
And if the studies are what these other doctors are saying, you do have a single digit likelihood of success.
If they're wrong, you could have 50% or better.
So it's how do you interpret all the information we have?
And then it was also saying to him I've got to have sort of the free reign to do whatever I think I need to do once I get in.
And how quickly do you move from this is my guy to the actual surgery?
What's the time?
By the time I spoke to him one of the things I liked about my conversation with him I was told that you should talk to this guy and he's confident he can help you.
When I talked to him, he said, oh, no, no, no, no, I'm not confident.
I'm confident I can do this procedure successfully.
I can't give you false confidence about your outcome.
And that was helpful to me.
It was honest.
I didn't need somebody.
It's another view of mine.
People who tell you they can solve your problem be extremely suspicious.
Extremely suspicious.
Your problem is multi-layers. evolved over a long period of time, all kinds of dynamics at play.
And so in this case, I knew that he could do the surgery.
I'd already factored all the calculations from the others.
I knew it was my only really good chance.
And I had concluded that the analysis I was getting was flawed from the others.
And I just, I said, let's go.
And within three weeks, I went from my first conversation with them to having surgery.
Tell me about that first conversation you had with them after the surgery was over.
The first thing was there were certain cancerous spots that were in doubt.
Could he get them?
And so I needed to know immediately, did you get them?
And he said, yes, got them.
Because the cancer had metastasized.
Yep, you know, got them.
And then it was, you know, how far?
And he said, I had to nip, cut, trim, move most of the things inside you.
I told him, thank you, but I'm as partial to as many parts as I can keep.
So he had to do a lot.
But he was confident.
He got everything he wanted to get.
And the initial pathology after the surgery was positive, but you don't know.
But it was exactly what he said, which is the surgery was successful.
Now we wait on the outcomes.
And I was...
I was relieved, but I don't want to sound overconfident, but it was what I expected.
Mm-hmm.
And how long?
I've forgotten now.
There was a six-week?
Yeah, you have six weeks and you get a blood test and you get a PSA score and mine had gone down significantly.
It was not in a great zone, but in a good zone at six weeks.
And then at another six weeks...
I went down and I have my text from him, which I will keep, because it's the only time I've ever gotten a text from a doctor where he used miraculous three times and one paragraph to me for the outcome of my test scores.
I believe I got a screenshot of that one.
Yeah.
And my doctors, the two, they were like kids high-fiving over the phone to each other.
They both joined on a conference call to call me to tell me the results.
They were ecstatic.
So there's three trust layers here.
There is the misplaced trust in the beginning, understanding that you had extended trust prematurely both to doctors and to— that trust was justified.
Trust in the doctor, trust in his experience, his approach, and trust in the tests.
That was misplaced.
And I'm more critical of myself than I am of the doctors.
And then the second layer was understanding.
I can trust myself in this.
This is, I know this, I've done this, I have experience in this.
And then the third layer was, this is the person who I'm gonna place my trust in for this surgery.
It's exactly right.
I mean, I trust myself.
I don't know how people that may sound to people.
It may sound arrogant or naive or whatever.
It was hard earned from decades in rooms where people would turn to me and say now, what do you think?
And if you can't add value or what you're saying doesn't make sense, you're going to be out of that room.
You're never going to be around.
And my work was 100% referral-based.
So if they don't have value in the room, I don't have a career.
So it was that.
And then it was the person...
And the process.
He laid out what he said he would do and how he would do it and what the equation was.
Putting all that together, along with my reading and analysis, I had a high degree of confidence that that was the right choice.
And I can honestly say I didn't lose a moment's sleep.
Had no second thoughts.
I was certain I had chosen the right course.
The idea that you didn't lose it and have a moment's sleep is so.
I lost most sleep over your condition than you did.
I was waking up in the middle of the night worrying about you.
And you're like sleeping like a baby.
Once I decided, I was truly confident.
I can't be confident that now it's going to turn out.
I was confident that I had all the information I need to make an informed decision.
That I had processed it thoughtfully, in a way that with the same rigor that I would give to a client, and that it was the best option available.
What's going to be is what's going to be, but that's what I came to.
And with that, I was at peace.
In the span of six months he went from.
You should get this looked at at some point to.
You should put your affairs in order to we can't find any more cancer.
I think that I discounted The idea of instincts and intuition in my work.
I lived by it.
But there was an element to me that discounted it, that it wasn't credentialed.
I didn't bring a Harvard MBA to this.
I wasn't... a lawyer at a major firm.
And I look back now, my instincts, intuition, judgment were everything in my work.
And it wasn't that what I had replaced the other people in the room.
What I say to people is you don't want a room full of people like me, but you want somebody like me when you're going through this.
And it is this intuition and instinct and the sense that you've described in Blink of processing and making a decision.
And there are thousands of things going on in your brain.
You don't even know, as you're making that decision.
And I have lived my life by it and lived my career by it.
And so trust is all tied up in that.
It's a fascinating field.
It is what I did with clients, because what they would say to me is how do I get people to believe us again?
How do I get my customers back?
How do I get them to give me more time?
How can I get them to look at this in a different way?
How do I do that?
What do I have to do?
So it's all of that that plays into it.
I just never figured I would end up processing it for myself.
Revisionist History is produced by Nina Bird Lawrence, Lucy Sullivan, and Ben-Nadav Hafri.
Our executive producer is Jacob Smith.
Engineering by Nina Bird Lawrence.
Original music by Luis Guerra.
Sound design and mastering by Marcelo D'Oliveira.
Special thanks to Kira Posey, Morgan Ratner, and Eric Sandler.
I'm Malcolm Claubon.
