Sep 1, 2026 · 55 min · 12 segments
**Meet the Author:** Dr. C. Victor Herbin III (aka: Dr. Vic) is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, leadership advisor, and the founder of Organizational Arrogance…
C. Victor Herbin IIIGuest
Jeffrey HigginsHost
So why doesn't that happen more when you're talking about leadership? Because if you're looking at academia more like esoteric types of topics, I can understand why there's this disconnect and maybe the way it's applied in real life is different.

But you're talking about leadership, right? You're talking about every company, there's a profit motive behind it, there's governmental agencies.

I would say that many times the disconnect comes where It goes back to the audience.

Who are we talking to? If we have CEOs, we have managers that have expressed this challenge, you're hiring high-paid consultants, and we're taking a thought, but we're not using the research-backed thoughts to say, okay, now what is the instinct? What is the problem? One of the things we learn as you work for, whether it's a master's program or your PhD, we identify a problem and then identify techniques and solutions to solve the problem, not solve the symptoms.

And many times there's that disconnect where we're not looking at the root problem.

It says, OK, yes, we can identify the symptoms, toxic leadership, destructive leadership, maltreatment, organizational silence.

Do you think there's something, like, is there a psychological reason that's behind this? Because I'm thinking, like, you're talking about, you know, the facts.

Identify a problem, back it up with data, but then it's not brought into whatever the practice is to solve the problem.

And, like, I've seen that personally a lot in government, where people, you'll have data, but they just do things the way it's always been done.

Is there some psychological reason you think why people can't apply data when maybe it creates some kind of cognitive dissonance because it doesn't match what they've been told they're supposed to do?

I think, again, it goes back to being able to, one, be real with self and understand, okay, this data is here.

Do we need to refute the data? We have the research that shows this, and I agree with the cognitive dissonance.

And once I have a responsibility to accept the data, now I have a responsibility to do something about the data.

Otherwise, it gets back to what I always share, behaviors that become accepted become expected and reinforced.

Same thing, whether it's between the academic world or what business say, well, what we're doing is still working.

So why doesn't that happen more when you're talking about leadership? Because if you're looking at academia more like esoteric types of topics, I can understand why there's this disconnect and maybe the way it's applied in real life is different.

But you're talking about leadership, right? You're talking about every company, there's a profit motive behind it, there's governmental agencies.

I would say that many times the disconnect comes where It goes back to the audience.

Who are we talking to? If we have CEOs, we have managers that have expressed this challenge, you're hiring high-paid consultants, and we're taking a thought, but we're not using the research-backed thoughts to say, okay, now what is the instinct? What is the problem? One of the things we learn as you work for, whether it's a master's program or your PhD, we identify a problem and then identify techniques and solutions to solve the problem, not solve the symptoms.

And many times there's that disconnect where we're not looking at the root problem.

It says, OK, yes, we can identify the symptoms, toxic leadership, destructive leadership, maltreatment, organizational silence.

Do you think there's something, like, is there a psychological reason that's behind this? Because I'm thinking, like, you're talking about, you know, the facts.

Identify a problem, back it up with data, but then it's not brought into whatever the practice is to solve the problem.

And, like, I've seen that personally a lot in government, where people, you'll have data, but they just do things the way it's always been done.

Is there some psychological reason you think why people can't apply data when maybe it creates some kind of cognitive dissonance because it doesn't match what they've been told they're supposed to do?

I think, again, it goes back to being able to, one, be real with self and understand, okay, this data is here.

Do we need to refute the data? We have the research that shows this, and I agree with the cognitive dissonance.

And once I have a responsibility to accept the data, now I have a responsibility to do something about the data.

Otherwise, it gets back to what I always share, behaviors that become accepted become expected and reinforced.

Same thing, whether it's between the academic world or what business say, well, what we're doing is still working.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.