Peter Goettler, CEO of the Cato Institute, Named Chief Influencer

Anthony Shop: Welcome to another episode of Chief Influencer. I'm your host, Anthony Shop, co-founder of Social Driver. Let's face it: Washington is the center of influence in the US and arguably in the world. Chief Influencer features leaders who have figured out how to break through in today's fragmented and fast-changing environment. Social Driver teamed up with the Communications Board and the George Washington University College of Professional Studies to recognize these incredible leaders as chief influencers and highlight how they inspire and influence others. I'm thrilled to introduce today's guest, Peter Gettler, president and CEO of the Kato Institute. Peter has spent the last decade leading one of Washington's most influential champions of the moral case for liberty at Kato. So, here are a few things I think you should know about him before we dive into today's conversation.

First, Peter believes principled leadership matters. Under his leadership, Kato has continued to make the case for individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace, not just as policy preferences, but really as enduring principles that should guide public life; and principal leadership, I know, is going to be a big theme for us today. Second, Peter brings an unusual combination of financial and institutional leadership to the world of ideas. Before joining KO, he spent more than two decades on Wall Street in senior leadership roles and now applies that strategic discipline to one of the country's leading think tanks, which is a think tank, but we'll hear much more. And finally, he's focused on more um than just today's political fights. Peter has helped position KO as an independent force in the battle of ideas, committed to free speech, open inquiry, and preparing future generations to carry the torch of liberty. So Peter, you've been called many things: a Wall Street leader, a steward of one of Washington's most influential think tanks, and a champion of the moral case for liberty. Today, we're thrilled to call you a chief influencer.

Peter Goettler: All right, Anthony, thanks so much. It's a real pleasure being with you.

Anthony Shop: Absolutely. Well, I walk by your office a lot; I have been familiar with the organization since way back in college, and so I think it's going to be fun to sort of go under the hood a little bit and hear how you can.

Peter Goettler: Get as far under the hood as you want.

Anthony Shop: Yeah, I mean, it, you know, because the way that we get our message out when it comes to research and policy, you know, and these things, it some ways it stayed the same, but of course in some ways it's, it's changed a lot. And for people who, you know, know the KO Institute by name but just may not fully understand it or what you do, how do you describe what KO is and the role that it plays in American public life today?

Peter Goettler: Well, Anthony, you tee that up pretty well because, you know, we view ourselves as being one of the, you know, most important wholly consistent voices for liberty in the nation's capital. Um, you, a think tank, just for members of the audience who need a refresher, is a public policy research organization. It's doing, you know, research, analysis, writing in order to try to influence the direction of public policy in the nation, and for Washington-based think tanks, federal policy is very important. At Kato, we're a little bit different. Um, a lot of think tanks, even though they all say they're nonpartisan because they're 501c3s and they have to be nonpartisan organizations, most of them line up either with the red team or the blue team. They tend to be partisan or political to one extent, uh, from one extent to another, and for us, we're really guided by an underlying philosophy, philosophy of libertarianism. It's a word that we don't, we don't like; it's not necessarily the best marketing word, but it's, uh, it is useful as a label. And for us, we view ourselves as, you know, advocating for, you know, a high degree of freedom in the economic realm. Uh, we don't want a lot of government, uh, intervention and interference and economic matters, but we also advocate for a very high degree of freedom in our personal lives.

So we care a lot about, uh, people being able to live their lives as they see fit. Um, we care a lot about, you know, the criminal justice system has to work properly because if it's not, innocent people may be losing their freedom and being, being locked up. We care a lot about civil liberties and, you know, being able to, uh, to speak our minds; so that's really the kind of our philosophy in a nutshell, and that guides everything, everything that we do. Uh, we have a statement of principles that people can see on our website; it's a summary of, uh, of what we believe, and from time to time we may change the way we articulate those principles, but the principles themselves, you know, will never change. Kato has existed for almost 50 years now; I was founded in, you know, 1977, and I think it's fair to say that, you know, the principles that underly the institution and our work, you know, haven't changed at all during that time. And as a result, uh, our position on, you know, important matters of public policy, or really any matters of public policy, haven't changed during that time as well, even while, you know, we've seen conservatives and progressives evolve in ways that over the last 50 years they've even switched positions on, on some issues.

The last thing I would say is—and, and this is another thing that you foreshadowed in your introduction—you know, we view our role as, you know, not just, you know, engaging in policy, even though that's an important part of our, uh, of our, you know, core mission is trying to move public policy in a direction of more liberty, but we also view Kato as, you know, an important, um, important institution in keeping the ideas of liberty alive, you know, for our country, passing the ideas and principles of liberty, the principles that are, you know, enshrined in our statement, onto future, future genera- generations. So we're not just engaging with policy makers; we're engaging with, with the public, we're engaging with educators, we're engaging with students and young people.

Anthony Shop: Yeah, and that's something I want to get into a little bit later because it's something that I think differentiates KO from other think tanks in terms of the work that you do, you know, with educators and and with young people. Um, but to go to one thing—.

Peter Goettler: One thing I'll say is, is you asked, you know, what would people maybe not know about KO; I should say that the most common misperception is that we're part of the right. And I think where that comes from is historically conservatives have kind of lined up with libertarians in economic matters, both supportive of free markets, and that's something that hasn't changed for us, but it seems to have changed quite a bit on the right. And I will say, I won't speak for all of my colleagues, but for me, you know, I don't feel a gravitational pull towards, you know, one political tribe or, or the other. Uh, for, for me, it's all about the principles, and I align with, uh, Democrats on many issues and have many areas of disagreement with them, and I align with Republicans on, on many issues as well and also have, have areas of, of disagreement. So often we're seen as, um, you know, part of the right, but we believe that that's a misperception.

Anthony Shop: So you've said, you know, that, um, Kato is grounded in principle rather than one party, uh, or either party, and I guess what does that mean in practice when both sides of the political spectrum, as you sort of alluded to, have moved in ways that, you know, they change positions and they're frankly moving in ways that, that you all don't agree with, that don't align with your principles?. But then in some cases, um, you might have opportunities to partner with groups on either—not necessarily partner, but to, you know, collaborate in some ways because they may align with you, like on criminal justice or some specific policy. So talk about what that, what that looks like.

Peter Goettler: I view it as having common ground with everybody. You know, we have a conference every summer for teachers, and one of the things I say to the teachers is I could go out right here on Massachusetts Avenue or 10th Street where we're based and I could pull someone off the street and I would probably agree with them on, you know, let's say half of the issues roughly, and which half is going to depend upon where they line up on the political spectrum. And I view our work as, uh, very much one of having common ground with everybody, trying to work together to, um, advance policy on the, the basis of that, of that common ground. Um, it's interesting that, uh, since a lot of libertarians, uh, pride themselves on being principled, in my experience, particularly looking at this world from the outside as I did for, for many, many years before I worked at KO and came to Washington, it always seemed to me that libertarians were trying to always make an excuse for why someone wasn't principled enough to, uh, engage with, that there were is this area of disagreement or that area of disagreement.

And my philosophy is, you know, I want to be friends with everybody. Um, that doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend I agree with them on everything; I'm never going to, uh, surrender, you know, deeply held beliefs or matters of principle. But I think it's a very glass-half-full way to look at the world to say, "Hey, I'm going to have areas of agreement with almost anyone along the political spectrum and we're going to be able to work together in order to try to advance policy in those areas of, of, uh, of common ground". We have a program, uh, that engages, uh, senior staffers on Capitol Hill; we call it our congressional fellowship program, and this in itself shows one of the things that is unique about KO. The staffers who enroll in that program tend to be about—the average is about 60/40 Republicans and Democrats, and usually when you have gatherings on Capitol Hill or near Capitol Hill, um, being hosted by an organization, it's usually, you know, 100 and zero or, or 90 and 10. So we take a lot of pride in that, and one of the things that I say to the congressional fellows is: we want to work with all of you; we're going to work with you and your offices and your members of Congress and your senators on different issues depending upon what party you belong to and, and, and where you are on the political spectrum, on the philosophical spectrum, but we know that we have things where we want to see policy, you know, going in the, going in the same direction.

Anthony Shop: So I want to talk about, um, the idea of influence. I mean, because you're, you, you mentioned reaching educators, you mentioned the fellows that you have on Capitol Hill, and I think when we think about influence, we want to drive some sort of action. And I guess the, the critique of an organization that's very rooted in principles could be, "Yeah, those are great ideas philosophically, but when it comes to practice, you got to compromise, and so those things may not actually work out as well". So how do you, how do you balance the principles with practice and changing policy and shaping culture and all of these things that, that you do? Um, love to hear kind of more about how you define that.

Peter Goettler: You know, the opening to your question was, you know, introducing the idea of, you know, influence and how we exert influence, and I actually think, uh, being rooted in principle, being seen as having a high level of integrity and credibility, is a very important element in having influence, exerting influence, and ultimately persuading people, because you, in order to get things done, you ultimately do need to, uh, to persuade people. So I think having that reputation for integrity and credibility, um, you know, in some of the, the marketing material that we use to introduce people to Kato, we had, we, there are so many quotes over the years where someone will say, "Hey, I don't always agree with Kato, but I always know what they're telling me is what they really believe. I know they're coming from a principle, principled place". Um, and I think that's, you know, very important element in having influence, especially in a town where, you know, everything's seen as being, you know, negotiable, uh, to one extent or another.

Um, you did mention, you know, compromise; I think that one of the things I realize is, you know, having a strong philosophy, I have a very clear view of what I want the world to look like, but I know in any area where we're trying to influence policy, we're not going to jump from where we are today to where I think that we should be. So when change is happening, it's always incremental change. And so the way I try to frame this in our work to make sure that we are still being rooted in, in principle, is to say, I, you know, when we're exerting, you know, incremental change, we're making incremental change, I always want it to be in the direction of, you know, what I consider the north star in that particular policy area. And I also don't want to accomplish that incremental change by making or advocating for any compromises of principle that we think we shouldn't be, you know, we shouldn't be making.

I, I think that, um, you know, many people who share, you know, the, the very liberty-focused outlook that, that we at KO have, um, you know, always want to make that big jump and, and you know, it just, it's, uh, it's just reality; change is always going to be incremental, but that doesn't mean that that incremental change isn't taking you closer to where you want to be, isn't expanding freedom. Um, and I think that that's very important to, uh, to keep in mind, and then also this idea of trying to be friends with everybody; you know, there's, I'm just so tired of angry people, right?. I think we all are. And I think that, um, you know, I, I believe very strongly that one of the ways to persuade people is to be likable, um, and that doesn't mean again that you're not—you don't have strong convictions and you, you work incredibly hard for them, uh, but it means you do so in a way that's civil and respectful and recognizes, you know, our philosophy is very much focused on the individual and the dignity and, and, and rights that every individual, um, possesses as, you know, because of, uh, that they were given by nature.

And you know, when you, when I—if that's your, your, your outlook, you really do need to be respectful to others. Um, you know, I think that we all, you know, maybe the, you know, what we see on the news, the kind of tip of the pyramid in terms of policymaking, you know, isn't always very attractive, but you know, in my personal life when I'm interacting with people in, let's say, a social setting, um, you know, I, I just believe everyone's coming from a place of good faith. Um, we all want to live in a world that's prosperous where people are living, uh, meaningful lives in a world, in a country that's at peace; we just all have a different way of, of getting there. And I think ascribing, um, you know, evil motives, you know, to people isn't really a good way to meet people where, where they are, and to your earlier question, you know, meeting people where they are, I think, is a big, big, uh, important element in reaching them and exerting influence.

Anthony Shop: Yeah, you talk about likability. That old book by Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, is a classic, and you know, certainly there's, there's a lot of lessons that we can learn from that. I think there's, um, this interesting challenge when it comes to influence, particularly in a political environment, um, around your, your principles and then, you know, the practice and when to compromise. I think, you know, we can probably all think of, for example, political figures who've been extremely consistent for decades in their positions and yet they don't have a lot of wins under their belt in terms of, you know, that co-sponsored legislation that's passed, for example; they're super principled, but then you look at it and go, "Well, are they—they're influencing the conversation, but are they influencing the outcomes?".

And I think the other challenge—and this is one that you probably face a little bit more—is when you find an area of commonality with someone or an organization, do you ever have folks who say, "Well yeah, we agree with them on that, but we're totally at odds with them on this other issue, so should we be really working with them to help them because this other issue they just totally are, you know, at odds with us on?". And so there's this sort of thing, "Okay, well, we can be totally consistent and an island and not get things done, on the other hand, you know, we could work with people where we have common interest, but then, uh, sometimes does that put us in another difficult?". So these must be the kinds of things that come up in your organization and in your movement.

Peter Goettler: Sure, and I, but I think it's just self-defeating not to engage, you know, with people, um, to basically say, "Hey, we—because we're, we're going to have disagreement". We have—I, I focused on the positive, the glass half full; the glass half empty is we have disagreements, you know, strong disagreements with, uh, with everyone, and if we're going to pick and choose, um, you know, who are the people we're not going to engage with because we have disagreements with them, um, as you suggest, you know, we're not going to be getting a lot done; we're not going to be exerting a lot of, a lot of influence.

Anthony Shop: I want to hear a little bit more about the education initiative that you, uh, addressed earlier, because you know, from my understanding of other policy research organizations and think tanks, um, I don't know if there are very many that engage as much with educators and students as you all do. And not only is that something that, that KO does, but from my understanding, that's something that you spearheaded, uh, when you came in as the leader. So what led you to decide that, you know, if you care about liberty, you can't just publish ideas for elites in Washington, but you have to, you know, engage teachers and students all across the country?. How did that, how did that start, and share a little bit more about the evolution of that, because I think that's an interesting facet of influence.

Peter Goettler: Sure, I'll, uh, I'll leave the education program to the side for a minute and just say—talk a little bit about, you know, what you said at the end about how the world has changed. You know, it used to be that, um—and I think that you, you had suggested, you know, when we had had, uh, had a call ahead of this interview that, um, you know, the way think tanks operate has changed, the way people consume information has changed, and you know, we've had to change along, along with that.

Anthony Shop: And we want to that world where we, we printed white papers and dropped them off by hand on Capitol Hill, and that was the number one way we tried to get our message out when I worked for an education policy organization early in my career.

Peter Goettler: So yeah, yeah, and I think that model's changed a lot. That was always the classic think tank model, and the reason was, you know, you don't have the resources to reach, you know, the mass audience to reach everybody in the country the way, let's say, a political campaign does. So what you're focused on—there was a lot of political science research that said, "Okay, the way public, public opinion takes its cues from, you know, so-called opinion leaders in the media, in the academy, policy makers". And so what think tanks were trying to do with their finite resources was to try to reach those opinion leaders, and that was one of the ways they influenced policy and then also could hope to influence public opinion. And I think what's really changed is the way everyone consumes information has changed. You know, the people on Capitol Hill, there are fewer and fewer reading white papers these days, um, so they're consuming their information differently, so we have to reach them in different ways.

But also, I just think about what the technological revolution that we've lived through in our lives has wrought, which is electrons are cheap, and reaching people with electronic information and digitally is just a different, uh—and so reaching a mass audience is a different proposition than it was in years past. So we've really focused on, you know, when I thought about the organization strategically when I, when I arrived, and again, coming from, you know, outside this world from the corporate sector, uh, I thought about, "Hey, what should we be doing differently strategically?". And I really thought, "Hey, we should be focusing on distribution a lot more," which is how we get our ideas out there. So we have a greatly expanded outreach effort to Capitol Hill, to the executive branch, to the states than we've had before, but we also have, you know, many more creative people generating, you know, engaging sharable content that we can distribute through all of the different channels that technology affords us. So that's, you know, an evolution that's happened in, uh, and, and in some ways a revolution that's happened in the way, in the way we operate relative to the way Kato did in, in decades past.

Um, with respect to the education, you know, initiative that, that you and I have discussed, and this is one where, you know, I, I think there are numerous think tanks who have tried to do outreach to students, you know, in the past; this is an effort where we're actually doing outreach to teachers, and in the last five and a half years, we've built a, uh, a network of over 20,000 teachers, and it feels like we're just getting started. But this is not in order to indoctrinate them in libertarian philosophy or to reach that sliver of libertarian teachers; it's really an effort to try to repair our civic culture. Uh, just because we have—obviously, our mission is, as I said earlier, to try to move policy in the direction of more liberty and also to keep the ideas of liberty alive for future generations. But one of the things I think is also well within our mission is to try to make some contribution to repairing our damaged political culture, to try to make the case for civility and respect and discourse, uh, to try to make a contribution to, you know, reducing polarization and repairing that civic culture.

Because, you know, if you're making the argument about why liberty will produce the best outcomes for society—and also we make arguments not just on the basis of outcomes, but we think there's a strong moral case to be made for freedom, for human freedom—um, if you're making that, you know, those arguments, they tend to be nuanced, you know, arguments; you want people to listen, and an environment where we're all shouting at each other, we feel that, uh, our ability to make that case for liberty is, uh, is reduced. Also, we think we should, um, spend a fair bit of time trying to emphasize, you know, what are the elements of human freedom that are so important that we should all agree on them? Shouldn't we all agree that, you know, freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment, is, is, is very important to all of us regardless of what your ideology is?. Uh, shouldn't we be making the case that the rule of law, which has been so important in preserving freedom and has been so important in the success of the United States over, over two and a half centuries—you know, shouldn't we agree that pre- preserving the rule of law, um, pre- preventing the undermining of the rule of law, is just a shared value and something that we should be working on together?.

We've really, um, the, the, the, the teachers that, that have, you know, engaged with us and have joined our network, um, are very enthusiastic about this because they see, you know, the impact of polarization in their classrooms; they see this extent to which it's impeding, you know, their ability to reach students, the, the, uh, the degree to which it is creating incivility, you know, among, among students. So it's, uh, I view all the things that I've talked about in the context of this program as, as being very important in advancing a liberty agenda, but I also think they're things that you should care about regardless of where you are philosophically or ideologically.

Anthony Shop: And how—say a little bit more about how your programs help to foster that civility in the classroom.

Peter Goettler: Yeah, we have, uh, we basically have three elements of the program in terms of building the network. We have two teacher conferences each summer at KO where we bring about 400 teachers from every state, um, here, here to KO. We have ongoing online professional development for them nearly every month, and then we have a couple travel teams that, uh, this year will visit about 115 city, cities, visiting, uh, schools, districts, engaging at teacher conferences, and that's how we get, uh, educators to engage with the program. And we basically provide them professional development training as to how to, um, uh, deal with some of these, uh, issues that make things a little bit more challenging in the classroom, and also we provide a lot of, uh, a lot of classroom content.

Uh, we have a team of former teachers who know a lot more about lesson plans and what teachers need and how we can assist teachers than, uh, than I do, uh, and they've been producing, uh, substantial amounts of, of content for which we've seen, you know, tremendous uptake on the part of, uh, on the part of teachers, again reinforcing these shared values, uh, trying to make attempts to, to repair the civic culture and also figuring out how to tackle contentious issues in the classroom. And obviously from our perspective, uh, to the extent people recognize, um, respectful, uh, disagreement and the importance of viewpoint diversity, you know, we feel that's also an element that, um, is, is advantageous to us because it allows our point of view to be present in places where sometimes it isn't.

Anthony Shop: Yeah, you know, when I was in high school, I was big into like all the speech and debate stuff, and certainly there's a, a benefit to public speaking and confidence and all that, but probably something I didn't realize at the time that I realized later was just, um, practicing taking a position and being passionate about your idea and being able to have that open but civil disagreement and, and then, you know, move on and, you know, go to the next thing or go back to being friends is so important. And I think that's, you know, an important lesson in influence, isn't it, is, you know, just having to go through that exercise?

Peter Goettler: Yeah, for sure, for sure, and, uh, particularly in, uh, the context of debate in schools, often you have to take a position that, um, you don't, you know, you don't believe in, right?. Just to be able to understand that position and to argue things from that point of view, it also, it always, uh, I think gives you a greater appreciation for the point of view of others and also, um, creates an advantage; it's beneficial for you because you understand how to make your case in a, in a more compelling way.

Anthony Shop: This episode is brought to you by the George Washington University's College of Professional Studies, with in-person and online programs ranging from master's degrees in public relations strategy to certificate programs in digital communications. GW offers more than just the credentials to help working professionals get ahead; it prepares them to be leaders in their field. Check out cps.gwu.edu for more information.

You know, um, a lot of folks in Washington and, and graduates from the, the GW Graduate School of Political Management, the College of Professional Studies, which are, you know, our great partners and chief influencer, um, they're in organizations where they're trying to figure out, "How do I get my message outside of the beltway? How do I get my message out across America?". And you shared one of the ways that you all do that through your education initiatives. You know, you're bringing teachers here, you have these teams going out to over a hundred cities, um, so there's this, this physical element of what we can do, there's this content; but, um, of course as you also mentioned, technology has changed and social media is a way to get out there. And I just happened to be scrolling through Instagram not too long ago, and in my feed popped a—I'll call it a viral moment from testimony with, uh, um, Senator Kennedy on Capitol Hill, and it happened to be one of your team members from KO.

Peter Goettler: I think I know, I think I know the clip to which you're referring.

Anthony Shop: I bet you do because it like, I think had millions of people have seen this clip, and you know, there's not too many think tank clips that get, uh, picked up. You said, quote, "They," referring to Republicans, "think they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing." End quote. Your words, not mine. Did I read that correctly?

David Beer (in video clip): That was in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about advocating 100 million deportations. That is what DHS's own account—100 million deportations—would be ethnic cleansing. You would be hurting one-third of the country. So yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland, Homeland Security—.

Senator Kennedy (in video clip): You don't think this is hyperbolic?

David Beer (in video clip): Give me 30 more seconds. I think advocating 100 million deportations is—.

Senator Kennedy (in video clip): I'm having fun here. "Ethnic cleansing"—maybe you could say something about that.

Anthony Shop: I mean, I don't know if these things are, you know, planned, if it was a surprise. What do you have to do to sort of get your team members to be able to, uh, be out there in the world to do that? But certainly that's a way that you broke outside of the beltway because a lot of people who were commenting and who saw that, they're not in Washington, they don't necessarily work on the hill, um, and, you know, again it's not too often we see like a C-SPAN clip that gets that sort of play, yes. So what—were you happy when you saw that?

Peter Goettler: Well, I can say it wasn't intentional, uh, because it's really hard to plan something like that. In fact, if you do show the clip, I think what people will see is that, you know, Senator Kennedy seems to be one of the masters of the gotcha, you know, and he was actually—and I think this is probably one of the things that contributed to this clip going viral—is that he was kind of laying a trap for, you know, our immigration expert, David Beer, who holds the, uh, the Cells Foundation chair in immigration policy at Kato. And, um, um, I think it kind of backfired on, on the senator, and David was, uh, was respectful, uh, but he was basically making his argument and refused to, to, uh, accept the argument that the senator was making that some of his statements were, you know, were hyperbolic.

And so we didn't plan that, but it is an example of why external engagement is so important. As I mentioned, external engagement, whether it's you sharing digital content through technology or meetings with staff or members of Congress on the Hill or testifying to Congress, these are all things that Kato is doing much more of than it has in the past. And I'm really proud of David because it shows the, um, the level of preparation, the level of knowledge and expertise and poise of our, of our policy experts. And it was really, again, not a planned moment, but it was only able to be, you know, successful from the perspective of, you know, um, putting, uh—I think pay—showing David in a very positive light and and going viral because of all those factors that are strengths that, you know, we're really, uh, looking for in all of our people, yea—.

Anthony Shop: Yeah, I mean, to your point, it wasn't planned but he was prepared, which is what allowed it to happen. I mean, I know what I saw; I thought, "Man, he is good," because you know—I mean, I've, fortunately, I've never had to testify before Congress and be on the hot seat in a way like that, but you know, sometimes, you know, somebody says something and then like an hour later you think of the comeback or whatever. I mean, he was just in the moment able to very confidently—.

Peter Goettler: Yes.

Anthony Shop: Respond, um, and I, you know, I just—I thought it was, it was just an interesting example, but I thought, "Wow, Ko is really getting their message out there with this guy," because, uh, I was kind of shocked to just happen across it. I don't think, I don't think the algorithm showed it to me because you and I were planning to do this interview; I think it was just something that was really, uh, viral at the moment.

Peter Goettler: Yes, I, I, I think, I think that's right, I think that's right. And also I think it, it shows, um, again I think the passion that you saw David ex- you know, exhibiting there shows the, uh—again, being rooted in, in, in principle, um, and being, being moored in that way, I think gives you strengths and, I guess as I was saying earlier, uh, it makes you more persuasive, allows you to exert more influence because you have that, that, that credibility and, you know, you really are rooted in, in, uh, in the values that we, uh, for which we advocate.

I think we're going to end up circling back a little bit to the sort of social media approach that you and the organization take by me asking you this question, which is that, you know, you came to KO from the private sector from Wall Street; uh, you were focused on financial services, you were not a scholar, you know, that was, that was kind of positioning yourself to lead an organization, uh, like this as, as many people who might pursue a different scholarly track do. How has that background shaped the way that you lead as the, the CEO of KO?. I would describe it—and this isn't maybe completely accurate—but I would describe myself as more of a, a Mr. Inside than a Mr. Outside, which is: I feel that we have, you know, a policy staff that's outstanding, and I view, uh, those folks as really being the stars of our organization and they should be out there advocating, telling the story, making the case.

My role, I think, is developing strategy, um, making sure the organization has the resources it needs to execute on its mission as effectively as possible. Actually, both those things—strategy and resources—are very important to effective execution, you know, of, of the mission, um, and then making sure that the organization is, you know, operating well internally. We like to run a tight ship from the perspective of expenses; we like to have very strong internal accountabilities for personal performance, for having a strategy of how your, uh, your work is going to help create the change that we seek or fulfill our mission, um, and so I see my role—I think if I had come up the way most think tank presidents do, as a scholar, I'd have my own research presence, my own external presence, and I didn't think it was necessarily efficient for me to prioritize building, you know, building that over figuring out the things that I could do as a leader to make the organization, uh, more effective.

One of the things you asked about when we, uh, when we first got together and were talking about the show, uh, is the fact that I don't have a presence on social media. Uh, I would love to have 200,000 Twitter followers, X followers; uh, that would give me a, um, you know, a, a platform that I don't have now, and there are times when I feel so strongly about something I'm seeing in the world, I, I wish I was able to communicate it externally in a very forceful way. But when I joined KO, I—it was really just a question of tradeoff and opportunity cost: what it would have taken, the time I'd have to dedicate to building a social media presence that would be, uh, effective, uh, really would have taken me away from all, a lot of other things that I, uh, I think were more important, were higher priorities. And that's a message that I, uh, really communicate internally, uh, you know, often, which is, you know—and, and anyone who's listening, and, and you as well, Anthony, would know that every day when you get in and you go to work, you know, there probably 50 things you could be doing. Well, you have time to do two or three of them, yeah. Why do you pick the two or three that you've chosen to execute that day, you know, compared to the, all, you know, the dozens, the dozens of others?. And those choices, that prioritization, is so important in making anyone an effective professional, and that was the same.

So I—that's something I challenge our people on all the time: why are you doing what you're doing and how is that going to contribute to execution of our mission?. And I hold myself to the same standard, and if I were on the treadmill of figuring out, you know, what I was going to post that day, I think it would take me away from other things I've been able to do that have helped make the organization stronger and make us more effective executing on the mission. And I probably sound like a broken record when I say "executing on the mission," but there's a special responsibility that comes when you're running an institution that's funded by voluntary contributions, and most of our contributions come from individuals. You have an unbelievable responsibility to these people to make sure that you are, you know, getting the most out of the resources they're entrusting to you, having the most impact you can, and executing effectively on the stated mission of the, of the organization. And all the things that we've been talking about are an important, important element of that.

Anthony Shop: And I, I love your, your candor on that, you know, saying, "Well, yeah, I wish I had hundreds of thousands of followers to do that". But you know, hey, that hasn't been the big priority; the priority has been a lot of the internal stuff and also, you know, empowering other team members to do that. In fact, if I remember right, I think you may have told me that when you were on Wall Street you had a manager that, um, kind of gave you some, some advice about shifting from being a producer, am I remembering that right?. Can you tell us that?.

Peter Goettler: Yeah, yeah, he was, uh, he wasn't a director of the organization but he was kind of like that; he was a mentor to many of us and, you know, you get a point at—you get to a point in your career on Wall Street where you're, you're largely a producer, working with clients, executing deals, but then you're becoming more senior. And at some point, many people have the opportunity to cross over and become a manager and a leader, and for a lot of us, it was difficult to give up that primary client responsibility and responsibility for, for, uh, for winning and executing, you know, financing transactions. And what he said to me was, "Look, um, think of what you could be contributing to the organization if, taking time away from doing your own deals, you were able to make 25 people in the organization better".

And that was pretty good advice, and I've, you know, I think that's probably informed what I described as, you know, how I see my role at Kato and how I've chosen, you know, to prioritize the things that I, that I do. Um, you know, the fact that I'm a think tank president, I guess that's—that's not on social media—um, is probably unusual, although I f- as you pointed out, I followed an unusual path to get here, but I was also unusual when I was on Wall Street: I was an investment banker who didn't know how to play golf. Um, and, you know, playing golf with your clients was always the classic, you know, kind of banker thing, and, um, I—it was the same thing: what, you know, what, what, what's the time I'm going to have to invest in becoming, you know, a golfer where I'm not embarrassing myself in front of my clients, and what's that going to take away from what are the other things I could—how I could use—be using that, that time and, and effort?. And in fact, I see a parallel between my time, you know, as a banker and not playing golf and, and now as a, a lead- the leader of KO, which is, you know, to me, it's the power of the ideas.

Um, you—I worked, that—banks were always trying to break in against established competitors and build a franchise, and I said, "Hey, you have to do that by having better ideas and better execution". And that's how I see what we're trying to do at, at KO. I think that we, uh, you know, maintaining, uh, adherence to our philosophy is part of maintaining that, that integrity and differentiating yourself and also bringing a commitment to excellence in your work and trying to bring, you know, the best ideas you can to the table, um, and how to make people's lives better, freer, more prosperous, more peaceful.

Anthony Shop: You know, what I, I love about some of these answers, I mean, the word authenticity comes up a lot, and we had one guest, um, Lydia, Lydia Stoman from the Student Conservation Association, said she doesn't really, you know, that word just kind of sound—it's so overused now. She said, "Let's just talk about being real, you know, being who you are". And but I think, so whatever vocabulary we use, there's something about like being who you are, and you know, you could be a successful investment banker without having to be a golfer. That might be somebody else's thing; doesn't have to be your thing. And you can look at it and go, "Well, every successful investment banker is a golfer, but that obviously isn't true". And you show that, and you can also, uh, be a successful leader of a think tank or a policy, you know, research organization and not necessarily very—be very big on social media.

You do have to make sure your organization has a way to reach people where they are. Absolutely, that can be from your brand, that can be from you, that can be from your people, and I was—after you and I had our, our, our prep call because, you know, we talked about preparation. So like, I always, when every time I can meet with a guest before this because I just always want to learn and understand what we're going to focus on, and one of the things that you and I talked about around that, and then I went and I had a conversation with a colleague and I said, "You know what's so interesting: I've interviewed several leaders who have said, 'Because I have built my brand on social media, my team members have followed my example and it's helped us expand our reach.' But then I talked to you and I went, 'Here's a leader who has not built his brand on social media, and yet we have David Beer going viral, and we have many people at your organization who've grown their own followings, and of course the brand has'". And both of those things can be true, right?.

Peter Goettler: Absolutely, absolutely. What it comes down to is what authentically works for you as a leader and what is the approach to make sure that you meet people where they are. Many of those other organizations maybe whose folks have built up on social media, you know, they don't have 20,000 teachers as part of their network, and so, you know, the importance of knowing what's authentic to us, what's, what's, you know, us being real, what works for us and focusing on those things rather than spreading ourselves too thin and trying to do everything and trying to, frankly, be—get the FOMO, the fear of missing out, and copy what everybody else is doing.

Anthony Shop: That's one of the things I've learned from you and so many of the chief influencers: it's like, "Hey, what are my goals? What's gonna work for me? And let me just take steps one at a time toward that".

Peter Goettler: Plus, we're all just a different portfolio of tal- talents and skills and strengths and weaknesses and areas for improvement, so the right formula for one person is never going to be the right formula for another person. You really do have to think about, um, you know, what are you, what are you good at and how do you bring that to the organization that create the most value to the organization?. One of the things we talk a lot about internally is: where do we find people's, you know—how do we figure out what people's kind of highest and best use is, where they can contri- make the, make the greatest contribution, you know, to the organization and it's, and it's its mission?. And that's not always obvious, and sometimes it takes trial and error, and sometimes you end up moving people around into different, you know, positions as you figure that out, or you make mistakes when you expand the responsibility of some people and you realize, "Hey, they—this really isn't what they're good at, um, they really weren't up for the, these additional responsibilities". I think it's really important to, uh, to keep that in mind, because if you're, you know, putting someone in a role or, you know, following the formula that requires a skill that you don't have, um, that's suboptimal.

Anthony Shop: And Peter, as I made my argument there and you just reinforced it, you just pulled it back into this idea of individual liberty to reinforce exactly whatation stands for, right?. Which is like that, uh, you know, everybody has different skills; we have to bring those together. So, uh, well done; uh, that's, that's very, uh, good influence strategy there. So I'm nodding along going, "Yeah, I get what he's talking about". Um, you know, I always love closing by asking, um, our guests—they always have just such fascinating career paths and the work that they do—and and you, you know, in particular, um, you've gone from Wall Street to now, you know, leading KO, which is this, you know, very well-known, uh, organization. How has your view of influence evolved across your career to where you are now?. I mean, how would you define influence now, and, and how's that maybe different from how you would have looked at it earlier in your career?.

Peter Goettler: I would say that what stands out to me is not necessarily how it's evolved but how it stayed the same, and I think one element of that is, you know, trying to have better ideas, uh, or, you know, just trying to, when you're competing, you know, trying to be better, whether it's better people or better ideas or better execution. Um, I think that's very important and, um, integrity, uh, integrity, uh, principles, values; it's not just true at KO, it was true on, you know, on Wall Street. Um, it, it maybe wasn't as important an element of influence, you know, on, on Wall Street as it is for us at KO, uh, but it was still very important to, to have that. In fact, uh, I've told my kids many times over the years that, um, you know, feeling good about who you are and liking what you see when you look in the mirror is just super important, and I think that, um, it becomes even more important as you get older and, and, uh, it becomes more important to you. So that's a lesson that I've tried to impart on them, and I think it's, it's, um, an important ingredient of success as well. Um, you know, maybe when I tried to draw a distinction there of how important kind of integrity was on Wall Street as influence, uh, versus KO, um, maybe I wasn't—maybe that wasn't right, because maybe, you know, being trusted is, you know, really important in almost, you know, almost anything that you do, and that directly, you know, feeds into integrity, character, principles.

Anthony Shop: I think that when I think about this conversation we had today, Peter, and I'm so, so grateful that you were—took time to be with us, principled influence is sort of the theme that I come away with. You definitely throughout have stayed consistent with this idea of holding true to principles as a way to, as you just said it, build trust and exert that influence, and as political parties move around, as technology changes and tactics, you know, evolve, there are a lot of things that, that change and where we have to change. And we heard how you've done that in your organization through technology, through launching an education initiative, you know, working directly with teachers, for example, but being consistent with your principles is a really great way to establish influence with others because they know where you stand. They know where it's not going to change, like you said some of your supporters have said, "We may not agree with every single thing, but we know that you're going to stick to those principles".

And I think that's a really important thing for all of us to think about during a time when it's very tempting to jump onto the new thing and change, you know, positions on something and try to compromise, and it's not black or white is what I have taken away from this. You can stay true to your principles and find ways to, um, partner with others and find ways to compromise so that you can have an incremental win toward the direction that, that you're going, and you know, win friends and influence people. You talked about, you know, um, uh, being friendly and building those, those relationships, and I also just think a great way to, you know, take away from this conversation is how, you know, you were the investment banker who didn't golf and that worked great for you. And as a leader, you haven't really focused on building your own brand on social media, but by doing that, many others on your team have, and certainly we have the fun clip of, of David Beer, uh, going head-to-head with a, with a senator and and how Kato's getting its message out in that way. So many lessons in leadership, many lessons in influence from our conversation today, but with a focus on principled influence. Peter, thank you so much for taking time to be with us.

Peter Goettler: Anthony, really grateful for you having me and and you know, completely enjoyed the conversation.

Anthony Shop: Likewise. Chief Influencer is a production of Social Driver. We help clients transform complexity into clarity with people-centered strategies. Whether you're looking to elevate the influence of your brand or of your leaders, check out socialdriver.com to learn more. For show notes or to nominate a guest, visit us at chiefinfluencer.org or follow Chief Influencer on LinkedIn.