callmemapo

About callmemapo

On technology, leadership, and life. Same great callmemapo newsletter content... in audio! callmemapo.substack.com (https://callmemapo.substack.com/s/callmemapo-newsletter-podcast?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

M. Alejandra Parra-Orlandoni (mapo)

Category

business · technology

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

2 Apr 2024

Latest episode

11 Aug 2025

Latest episodes

26 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   11 Aug 2025

   No Ref, No Rules

   When I was a kid, there was nothing more exciting than hearing someone shout, "No ref, no rules!" during a soccer game at recess. It felt like pure freedom. Suddenly you could use your hands, tackle people on the field, score from anywhere. For about ten minutes, it was glorious chaos. Then it became actual chaos. The stronger, faster kids started dominating the game. Many kids lost interest and stopped playing. Someone usually got hurt. Arguments broke out. Eventually, we'd sheepishly go back to regular rules (or one of the teachers would make us) because, well, it turned out the game was more fun in the long-run when everyone knew what they could and couldn't do. Most of us learned this lesson on the playground and moved on, but some never did. When CEOs Play "No Ref, No Rules" Much of Silicon Valley has spent the last few decades running the adult version of "no ref, no rules." Mark Zuckerberg's famous motto (https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-era-of-move-fast-and-break-things-is-over) "move fast and break things" was basically the corporate equivalent. The ideology has been intoxicating (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/big-tech-founders-gates-neumann-jobs/671519/): rules are for the slow and bureaucratic, disruption is always virtuous, and speed equals progress. And just like on the playground, it’s exciting… until reality catches up. Theranos moved fast and promised to revolutionize medicine. Elizabeth Holmes hired lawyers who would say yes to anything, and when David Boies finally started asking uncomfortable questions (https://nysba.org/usa-v-holmes-why-lawyer-directors-are-a-bad-idea/?srsltid=AfmBOoqebMy-lG5gdBRawfHTFSq8Jk-zZqsDy630QD7fBa5INU7y8HDP), she just got rid of him, lest he reveal the technology simply didn't work. FTX moved fast and promised to democratize finance. Sam Bankman-Fried surrounded himself with people willing to play fast and loose with the law (https://coingeek.com/dan-friedberg-criminal-role-laid-bare-in-ftx-ceo-report/), collectively perpetuating one of the most scandalous financial frauds (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-06/who-is-daniel-friedberg-ftx-lawyer-is-caught-up-in-crypto-firm-s-fallout) in recent memory. Remember WeWork’s irresponsible finances and toxic leadership (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/20/why-wework-went-wrong#:~:text=But%20Neumann's%20leadership%20and%20loose,She%20was%20later%20fired.), or Humane AI peddling $700 snake oil as revolutionary AI (https://www.theverge.com/24126502/humane-ai-pin-review)? The list goes on. In the name of moving fast, they all broke rules and norms, but also investor confidence, customer trust, and in many cases employee lives. The patterns are easy to spot once you’re savvy to them: legal teams are labeled "cost centers," dissenting voices are marginalized, and everyone is expected to find ways to say yes or step aside. And when things turn upside down, the “no ref, no rules” crowd insists on shirking any responsibility. These examples aren't merely business failures. They’re moral failures with real human costs by the thousands: from patients getting false diagnoses, to investors losing billions, to employees losing their livelihoods and even future employability. But hey, at least the companies moved fast! When the Stakes Turn Deadly: Pete Hegseth's Pentagon Playground We’ve now seen this same mentality creep into places where the consequences are life and death. Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top Judge Advocates General (TJAGs) (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/us/politics/hegseth-firings-military-lawyers-jag.html) in the same week. These are the military's top lawyers, the people whose job it is to make sure our armed forces operate within the law. Hegseth, who once reduced military lawyers to the epithet, "jagoffs," (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/us/politics/hegseth-jagoff-confirmation-hearing.html) apparently decided that legal oversight was cramping his vision of a more “lethal” military (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4172313/hegseth-tasks-army-to-transform-to-leaner-more-lethal-force/). His reasoning sounds familiar: Rules are holding us back from victory. We need to return to the "warrior ethos," (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4040940/secretary-hegseths-message-to-the-force/) unencumbered by all this “legal friction.” Why should we waste any time consulting legal experts to confirm the world’s most powerful military is aligned with the rules of engagement, Geneva Conventions, or Constitutional rights? It’s the same "no ref, no rules" mentality, except this time in the context of war, where human lives and sometimes even the world order are at stake. It’s worth acknowledging that adversaries can certainly exploit adherence to laws and values for strategic advantage. Sure, a soccer player can gain an edge by diving for penalties or time-wasting when the ref isn't looking. But abandoning rules doesn't even the score — it forfeits the game. Even front line officers understand this. In 2010, Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Army, revised the rules of engagement (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/world/asia/04petraeus.html) in Afghanistan to ensure the protection of Afghani civilians during hostilities. Petraeus wrote: "We can't win without fighting but we also cannot kill or capture our way to victory. … That's exactly what the Taliban want. Don't fall into their trap." He understood that skirting legal and moral constraints creates insurgents, destroys alliances, and undermines mission success. Hegseth apparently has a different endgame in mind. In his worldview, "move fast and break things" on the battlefield appears to be an end itself, which ironically risks undermining what the military is presumably fighting for in the first place. Constraints Fuel Progress Here's what those kids on the playground, Silicon Valley disruptors, and now Pentagon leadership, failed to wrap their heads around: constraints don’t stifle progress, they enable it. Consider the artificial constraint of Twitter's 140-character limit. It initially seemed arbitrarily restrictive, but it forced people to be creative and concise in ways that revolutionized communication. New forms of expression were born: hashtags, threads, new levels of wit and pithiness. They became cultural phenomena that only seem mundane today because they’re so ubiquitous. Or think of SpaceX, which faced head-on the physics, engineering, and economic constraints that make rockets insanely expensive to build, only to be discarded. SpaceX used these very constraints as the foundation for breakthroughs that have reshaped the entire space ecosystem. We can also look to the defense sector: U.S. military strategies requiring accurate tracking and precision strikes to minimize unintended casualties led to the invention of GPS. These constraints imposed by military strategy not only enabled the development of specific solutions like GPS-guided munitions, but a technology that has become integral to our modern infrastructure. (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201002-would-the-world-cope-without-gps-satellite-navigation) This principle even extends into the arts. Janan Ganesh (incidentally, one of the most delightfully pithy writers of recent vintage) explained in a piece called, “Why Oasis won in the end,” (https://www.ft.com/content/a3120316-f660-44da-9e45-88056e8ccf62) how the lack of constraint has curbed artistic innovation: Creative breakthroughs have tended to happen as rebellions against governmental, religious or academic rigidity. Hence Monet, and Johnny Rotten. Now that almost everything is permitted, there is correspondingly less frustration and desire to strike out in new directions. Constraints, whether rooted in nature (like physics) or devised by humans (like laws), have sparked incredible advances spanning food security, health standards, government design (like the US Constitution!), reliable infrastructure, and on. And sure, testing boundaries is a critical part of discovery and progress. But there's a difference between testing boundaries and disregarding them entirely. Those who disregard the rules just because they're inconvenient may think they’re unleashing potential, but in reality they’re just ruining the game for everyone and leaving others to clean up the mess. Why a Culture of Accountability Wins in the End Funny, the people most eager to remove accountability are often the ones who most need it. They mistake the absence of constraint for freedom, but what they're really choosing between is accountability versus chaos. Thomas Hobbes understood this centuries ago when he observed that life in the absence of rules and norms is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Consider economics: The rule of law creates the predictable framework that makes long-term investment and innovation possible. You can't build a thriving economy when contracts are meaningless and property rights are arbitrary. Hobbes again: In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death…. Venezuela’s drastic economic collapse (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis) is a recent example of what happens to a nation that’s abandoned legal accountability. The judiciary became an arm of the regime (https://www.wola.org/analysis/round-table-just-judicial-system/), paving the way for electoral fraud, human rights abuses, and major crimes – gutting the institutional safeguards that underpin economic stability and make growth possible. Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado commented in a recent podcast interview (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/venezuelas-opposition-leader-mar%C3%ADa-corina-machado-says/id1294461271?i=1000702305396): “[H]ow would anybody invest in a country that is absolutely in the last place in terms of rule of law…literally the last place, out of 140 countries evaluated around the world?” She has a point. Or consider the consequences when accountability breaks down in war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, marked by deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and widespread atrocities, has not just cost it on the battlefield. It has cost it legitimacy (https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/legitimacy/): “Russia’s actions in Ukraine earned the nation pariah status, which will ultimately be disastrous for accomplishing its military objectives and could also have real long-term economic impact.” Even though Russia remains formally powerful, its global standing has cratered, sanctions have deepened (https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-sanctions-has-world-put-russia), and its allies tread cautiously. The images from Bucha and Mariupol (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-blacklists-butchers-bucha-mariupol-latest-russia-sanctions-2022-06-03/) outraged the world and entrenched Russia's isolation. It should go without saying, but following in Russia’s footsteps should not be a goal of the Pentagon. Yet Hegseth seems a bit too comfortable making light of rules and norms (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/us/politics/hegseth-firings-military-lawyers-jag.html): pardons for convicted war criminals, contempt for rules of engagement, disdain for the Geneva Conventions (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/25/military-lawyers-fear-firings-will-enable-hegseth-to-bend-law-00206069), the sudden firing of the top military legal officers. As reporter Hafiz Rashid summarized (https://newrepublic.com/post/192695/pete-hegseth-replace-military-lawyers), “It seems that [Hegseth] thinks that there is no problem with U.S. soldiers committing war crimes, as long as America is ‘tough.’” But you can win every battle and still lose the war, if you lose legitimacy. And yes, of course rules and their enforcers can go too far. Many a dystopian novel has been penned about police states or over-engineered societies gone wrong (classics like 1984, Brave New World, and The Giver, for instance). Some of us might even remember the tyranny of the overeager hall monitor from grade school. But that’s not what I’m talking about. When companies shrug off responsibility, they tend to collapse — or worse, position others to absorb the inevitable wreckage that follows. When states dilute or altogether disregard the rule of law, as convenient as it may seem at the time, they ultimately become unstable, hollowed out by corruption, violence, and fear. And it’s people who pay the price. The "no ref, no rules" crowd will always be with us, convinced they're too important for rules. But the rest of us learned on the playground that the game is more fun, more fair, and more productive with accountability. We'll always encounter leaders who want to play without referees. I suppose it’s up to each of us to have the courage to insist on better. After all, we figured this out when we were kids. We can figure it out as adults too. What’s your experience with the "no ref, no rules" attitude in your workplace or industry? I'd love to hear from you. Thanks for reading callmemapo! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com (https://callmemapo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   15 Apr 2025

   Ego in Disguise

   I know it’s been a while since I’ve written for the blog. A few other writing projects have been in the works. If they pan out, I’ll be sure to share with you. For now, hope you enjoy this topic, which has been on my mind for the better part of a year. “I’m just curious…” How many times have you heard someone start a question with these three words, knowing full well that what they’re about to say has nothing to do with curiosity? What follows is less a question and more a veiled opinion or a challenge disguised as innocent inquiry. “I’m just curious… why would you choose to do it that way?” The judgment and I-know-better undertone are palpable. This type of faux-curiosity is everywhere these days. And ironically, it evinces the opposite of what curiosity requires: humility. Today, curiosity is the star feature of business articles (https://www.harvardbusiness.org/the-importance-of-being-curious/) and personal development blogs (https://davidnjohnson.com/principles/unlocking-potential-how-curiosity-inspires-personal-growth-and-creativity/). It’s praised as a driver of innovation (https://www.the10disciplines.com/blog/the-power-of-curiosity-fueling-growth-and-innovation), a secret to success (https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220831-curiosity-the-neglected-trait-that-drives-success), even a cornerstone of good leadership (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelwells/2023/12/17/3-reasons-curiosity-is-an-in-demand-leadership-skill-how-to-build-it/). And it’s all true. In fact, curiosity is a core value I myself try to live by. Curiosity has opened my eyes to diverse perspectives. It’s exposed me to new connections and learnings. It’s made my world bigger and more interesting. And it’s helped me to grow as a person. But humility is a prerequisite to curiosity, and it’s usually mentioned as an afterthought, if at all. Real curiosity — the kind that’s generative, connective, transformative and does all the things it promises to do — is impossible without humility. Absent humility, curiosity is performative. It ceases to be about learning and becomes all about showing: showing what we already know, showing how sharp our questions are, showing how right we are. (I’ll admit, I’m guilty of this sometimes!) That’s how you get panel discussions where panelists talk past each other, or a workplace where team leads never really come together because each thinks they know best, or “thought leadership” that amounts to confident speculation (how many “AI experts” can you count since the launch of ChatGPT?). This is partly the result of living in a culture where humility isn’t rewarded. Most of us have experienced a work setting where incompetent leaders are elevated (https://hbr.org/2020/03/how-to-spot-an-incompetent-leader), volume trumps substance, and that one loud and over-confident person gets recognition, deference, and promotions. And practicing humility can be hard. It feels like a risk — to our ego, our reputation, even our self-confidence. We’re wired to want to be right. To wit: studies show that people routinely overestimate their knowledge or abilities, like the (in)famous stat that about 30% of adults (interestingly, 50% when considering only men) believe they could safely land an airliner (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4349573-men-think-they-can-safely-land-a-plane-in-an-emergency/) in an emergency. So in environments that prize decisiveness, action, and expertise, admitting “I don’t know” can feel like shooting yourself in the foot. For all these reasons and more, humility doesn’t get much airplay. It isn’t loud. It isn’t sexy. But humility is what allows us to say, “Maybe I don’t know enough yet and would like to learn more.” It’s what creates room for listening and for the possibility of change. Practicing humility doesn’t necessarily mean selling yourself short, though. It’s the courage to ask the so-called “dumb” question that everyone else in the room is too afraid to ask. It’s letting go of the need to be the smartest person in the room and empowering others to contribute. It’s recognizing that your perspectives are incomplete and inviting someone else’s to help deepen your understanding. It’s being willing to say, “I was wrong, and I’d like to learn from you.” Admittedly, it’s not always easy. And women in particular face a double bind (https://www.fastcompany.com/90889985/new-research-reveals-critiques-holding-women-back-from-leadership-that-most-men-will-never-hear): appear confident, or be dismissed; admit uncertainty, and risk being overlooked. Nevertheless, it’s the humble ones we ought to be celebrating and emulating (https://www.fastcompany.com/3018516/benjamin-franklin-george-washington-and-the-power-of-humility-in-leadership). And they’re out there — exemplars like Warren Buffet, Mary Barra, and Nelson Mandela (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/c-suite/the-role-of-humility-in-effective-leadership-lessons-from-top-executives/articleshow/104626364.cms?from=mdr). So if we want to be truly curious, we also have to practice humility. We have to be willing to admit we don’t know everything. To learn from people we might have underestimated. To be open to changing our minds. Curiosity without humility is ego with a question mark at the end. And maybe that’s the question worth asking ourselves next time we say, “I’m just curious…” Are we? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com (https://callmemapo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   2 Jan 2025

   Beyond 'This vs. That'

   Boss 1: I really need you to focus on the how, not the what. Employee A: ...but shouldn’t the what influence the how? Boss 2: Here, we prioritize execution. Employee B: ...even if we don’t know what strategy we’re supposed to be executing against? Boss 3: At this company, it’s important to get everyone aligned around a common strategy. Employee C: ...even though we haven’t delivered or executed a single thing in months? I really could go on, but I won’t. This is but a tiny fraction of the black-and-white thinking I’ve encountered over the years in the working world. (Scroll down to check out my non-exhaustive ‘this vs. that’ list. Recognize any?) Singular examples like these seem innocuous, meriting no more than a dismissive shrug, maybe an eye roll — or even a nod of agreement from some of you. In fact, there are many useful reasons we separate ‘this vs. that’: anthropological, social, psychological. For example, French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss found that a uniting factor across humanity was our tendency to see the world in terms of binary oppositions. German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel structured dialectics to enable productive inquiry and discourse based around two opposing sides. German sociologist Max Weber defined ‘ideal types’ as heuristic tools designed for understanding and modeling the real world. As with all heuristics, ideal types simplify real-world complexity, in their case by essentializing what is being examined. For example, you have likely come across an ideal types analysis of leaders: the charismatic leader, the quiet leader, and so on. The common thread? ‘This vs. that’ is helpful analytically — but it is not reflective of reality. Best illustration of Levi-Strauss’ binary oppositions, IMHO. And complete with a little motivational bonus from Merlin: You must set your sights upon the heights Don't be a mediocrity Don't just wait then trust to fate And say, "That's how it's meant to be" It's up to you how far you go If you don't try, you'll never know And so my lad as I've explained Nothing ventured, nothing gained But we love simple answers to complex problems. Resorting to black-and-white thinking is a tempting way to confront complexity and accompanying messiness. But black-and-white thinking isn’t all good. Here is an excerpt from the WebMD entry (https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking) on it: Black-and-white thinking is a thought pattern that makes people think in absolutes. For instance, you may think you are either always right or the world’s biggest failure. Psychologists consider this thought pattern to be a cognitive distortion because it keeps you from seeing life the way it really is: complex, uncertain, and constantly changing. And what we do within organizations is incredibly complex: collaborating across disciplines, teams, and often timezones to build products; managing and leading diverse teams of people; navigating dynamic and unpredictable market and political environments; responding to changing customer demands. The thing is, exchanges like those in the introduction aren’t typically one-offs. They tend to reflect broader organizational narratives — which in turn reflect and/or shape organizational mindsets and cultures. To illustrate one way this might come to be, imagine: A respected senior leader makes an organization-wide announcement meant to create a sense of urgency and motivate everyone to beat a quarterly deadline. In a rhetorical move, that leader makes a rallying cry: “Execution eats strategy for lunch!” Over the next several months, every employee on every team is all-in on prioritizing all things execution, and the organization beats the deadline — hooray! The senior leader celebrates along with the team, praising excellence in execution and enjoying congratulations from the C-suite. With all that success and positive reinforcement, each person on the team — including the senior leader — begins to internalize that execution always matters more than strategy. Prioritizing execution over strategy makes decision-making around things like allocation of budget and headcount much simpler. “Execution eats strategy for lunch” imperceptibly morphs from rallying cry into a credo. Fast forward six months, and the same team is producing a ton of stuff, but the value of that stuff is questionable at best. People who were hired to do research and strategy work for the company feel lost and underappreciated. There is no strategy to execute against. The lunch tray is empty. Therein lies the problem: When black-and-white thinking becomes an organizational driver, the organization itself becomes less capable of operating in the complex, messy real world. Although ‘this vs. that’ can be a helpful analytical and decision-making tool, the separation can also become overly formalistic and neglect the interrelated nature of most binaries. The heuristics that help us process complexity may also eliminate depth of thinking and lead us astray. H. L. Mencken captured it well: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Moreover, ‘this vs. that’ can quickly become ‘us vs. them.’ This happens because some of the binaries that emerge within organizations align with particular teams or departments. Sprinkle in organizational power dynamics — like more funding and headcount, higher salaries, greater decision-making authority, easier access to executives, sometimes even blatant cronyism — and over time, the teams focused on ‘THIS’ becomes favored over the teams focused on ‘that’. I’m sure you can extrapolate how that plays out. So what are we to do with all of this? Are we to abandon categories, models, heuristics, and analytical tools? (A fun aside: Statistics are one of those useful tools for making sense of the uncertainty around us. Check out one of the more interesting articles (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-probability-probably-doesnt-exist-but-its-useful-to-act-like-it-does/) I’ve read recently, authored by David Spiegelhalter, emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Cambridge, UK. He concludes the piece, “In our everyday world, probability probably does not exist — but it is often useful to act as if it does.”) No. I’m not suggesting that at all. Approaching everything as fluid and category-less breaks down quickly, stymying decisions, fostering overwhelm, and generating excessive confusion. But I am suggesting that as we come across black-and-white thinking at work, we stop for a moment and: * Acknowledge that the black-and-white thinking is simplifying something far more complex. * Appreciate which assumptions we may be making, or glosses we may be applying, to land on the black-and-white model. * Consider how the black-and-white model is helpful, in what context, and for what purposes. * Accept that the black-and-white model has limitations and commit to questioning what they are early and often. * Ask whether explicitly embracing complexity, messiness, and uncertainty may be more useful for a particular situation. Put more simply: let’s not create misunderstanding using the very tools we’ve invented to help us with understanding. Non-exhaustive list of ‘this vs. that’ at work * Management vs. leadership * Substance vs. process * What vs. how * Engineering vs. science * Execution vs. strategy * Operations vs. core business * Create vs. protect * Product envision vs. product discover * Revenue generation vs. cost center * Technical vs. nontechnical * Science vs. art * Subjective vs. objective * Qualitative vs. quantitative What would you add? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit callmemapo.substack.com (https://callmemapo.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

YouTube views

269

Score snapshot 15 Sept 2025

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

2 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 43 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

48

Social presence

0

YouTube

64

Engagement

32

Contact callmemapo

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.