>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: hillary clinton's testimony, paul ryan's campaign as speaker of the house and joe biden's decision not to run for president, those are the big political stories were looking at this week. john dickerson joining us from washington, the editor of "playbook," politico's mike hillary clinton do today? >> -- how did hillary clinton do today? >> she did well. you had a memorable line in your acceptance speech that passed

around to our colleagues. when you wake up in the morning, say what is my adventure going to be, questions have been my best friend and my power, curiosity, such a great message for all journalists. charlie: we also emphasize writing too. remembering charles kuralt, who said when we see a writer around cbs we stand up and salute him or her. thank you, mike. turning to hillary and her much testimony today, how did she do --much-anticipated testimony today, how did she do? >> she did fantastically. her campaign, her allies very excited. what she did was very smart she went in and she was placid, she was polished, and her basic demeanor and approach was, if you want to ask me these questions for the eighth time, i will answer them for an eighth time.

she previewed the strategy when she said earlier, i don't have a lot new to say. charlie, that is something [indiscernible] >> this will never be the best day for hillary clinton because it's not a period of time that she wants to talk a great deal about. given that, she had two pitfalls. the first was, with or be a new revelation that would say she was at fault or as a leader she did something wrong? that did not really happen. the second pitfall was, would there be a moment where she would look calloused or dishonest. that did not really happen either. if she can whether those two things, this is her last big hurdle in the month of october which was supposed to be a tough month for her. she was able to get through that, and it was a long, long day in that seat. charlie: we've had no contest

if she starts to be measured against hillary clinton -- she's better when she's got some competition. that is why the debates went well for her. she's got amazing strength in south carolina and all the rest of the states. she's ahead in iowa and losing a little bit to bernie sanders in new hampshire. if that sticks, she's in fine shape. >> we are seeing something we have not seen in many months, and that is hillary clinton on the offense of. she went in, republicans were a bit gunshot because of the accusations of partisanship about this committee and the vice presidents out of the race, her doing well in polls, for the first time, this campaign feels like they are getting their footing. >> the committee had a big challenge, which was to always keep the questioning centered

around why did this terrible thing happen in benghazi, and use hillary clinton is a part of that conversation, but there were periods where what was being said was what we already knew, that there was systemic failure here, security was low and that was not addressed. there were other periods were the questioning seems very secondary to the central question, why did this happen and what was hillary clinton's role. if you were a regular person tuning in, there were periods where you wondered what the devil all this -- charlie: he had asked for more support. she basically said it's not the role of secretary of state but it happened on her watch, so some people held her responsible. >> that's right. the republicans on the committee were trying to say, here were all the mbl -- here were all the e-mails from the ambassador saying, help me. there were other e-mails hillary clinton was involved in, in which she seemed quite available and able to talk about anything. so why wasn't she getting the messages about help me from the ambassador when she could get other kinds of information about

that was an interesting line of inquiry. when it got down into the weeds, it quickly became one where you look at it and thought, what does this have to do with the central question. charlie: she made sure everybody understood that ambassador stevens was a good friend of hers. and secondly, that after his death she was fully behind all kinds of recommendations, make sure this kind of thing did not happen again. >> as you pointed out, basically saying the security piece is handled by professionals. it's not really the secretary of state's job to make sure the security was up to snuff. that's a little bit of buck passing. on the other hand, that is the answer she has given before, so there's nothing new coming out of this. charlie: before we turn to biden, when you look at the question of the e-mails, this committee was organized to look into benghazi and then it discovered the e-mails and they

had been done on a private server. is anything come out of that story? is there any potential something could come out of there that will do damage to her down the road? >> absolutely potential. this is the worry for her that is why kansas vets themselves, they do research on themselves so they know the worst things that are out there. secretary clinton's campaign does not know that. they don't know whether these e-mails will be recoverable, which of these e-mails might be problematic. here's the biggest known unknown. as you and john know from recovering investigations like this over many years, the problem of having the justice department look into something is they never start with what they will and with. -- end with. when they start looking into it, the justice department can go

any number of directions, it can go over many months, and you have no idea what's going on exactly the series of circumstances you don't want if you're trying to plan a national campaign. charlie: joe biden? >> the beginning of the long goodbye to his career when he decided not to run for president. his speech was, i'm not running. but everything in his speech said, i really wanted to run and this is the speech i would have given. charlie: he had a message he wanted to take to the country that he believed in. >> he did. one thing that struck me about it was he said, we've got to try again with republicans. there was a little dig at hillary clinton he said republicans are not our enemies. that is an interesting notion. it's a notion you would expect from a guy who started his career in the senate in the early 70's. the democratic party has demonstrated by the grassroots voters, support for bernie sanders is, republicans are a

lost cause and we need to behave that way and we need to run our campaign that way. it would have been interesting to see if he got of gotten any traction from that kind of old-fashioned message. we can reason with them. there's not a lot of appetite for that out there. charlie: you said earlier today this was a battle between his heart and his head, and for the first time, his head won. >> that's right. this was never going to be feasible. if you looked at the hurdles for the vice president, starting with money, he would have been paying air force two bills were ever. he went, very expensive -- wherever he went, very expensive. most of the people who were willing to do this campaign are already spoken for. hillary clinton would need to have some dramatic turn befall her to be really vulnerable. everything the vice president has done for weeks, months is

somebody who wanted to run. my colleague said that the speech that john dickerson referred to was the speech that clearly joe biden has been giving it his head. charlie, i admitted to you here on "charlie rose" the week that i have been going back-and-forth about whether or not he was likely to run, i have been for it for quite a while and it turns out there was a good reason for that, and that is that the vice president himself have been ebbing and flowing. politico reported that even monday he came in, seemed frazzled, exasperated, and was demanding more operational details of what staff was immediately available, how they would pull this off. to the very end, the vice president looked at whether it was feasible, but for so long, people close to him have been telling us if you're going to run, you run, and someone told my colleague that in the end, it turned out this whole exercise was more fantasy football than football. charlie: what does he do now, he remains as vice president, he has an agenda of some kind, he's very concerned about cancer, and i think he would've made that a big part of the campaign, a kind of moonshot for cancer.

>> that's what he talked about. this is a bit of armchair psychology, but if the reporting is true, that is his whole family message, which is when you are knocked down by an emotional thing like this, you get up and redouble your efforts. the cause of running for presidency would have been a natural place. without that avenue, the battle for cancer, you can imagine would be another avenue, another thing he could throw his heart and soul into. we can't get much higher than vice president. he will be fascinating to see where he takes all that energy for a life that has been constantly on the ascent. charlie: the speaker of the house and paul ryan, where does that stand?

>> paul ryan will likely be the speaker. the way he came about it is so fascinating. paul ryan, chairman of the ways and means committee, one of the most powerful committees, and the one that he has long dreamed of running, was the one person that looks like he could bring house republicans together, the one person in that body that could work with democrats but work with the white house, and there was such a great hope among top republicans that he would do it. he came in and drove a very hard bargain. somebody called it a reverse ransom note. that is rather than the wheeling and dealing somebody usually does when they want to become speaker or have a leadership job, he issued the conditions to

the right wing of his party and he said, i will give something to you. i will have some concessions, including giving more power to the committees and entertaining many of your ideas, but the speaker under me would be more powerful, and he would remove the ability of the faction to constantly threaten to undermine him. and, they have gone along. charlie, it looks like he is on path for paul ryan to have the gavel, something that is a big surprise. you and i talked about it, the tough calculus for paul ryan. if he is speaker today, he's less likely to be president in the future. that was a tough decision. charlie: why is that? >> i think this is where mike is going to these going to have a lot of tough fights because the freedom caucus still wants what it wants. paul ryan has been on the opposite side of the caucus on a number of issues, whether it is the government shut down or the

ryan murray budget extension, all things this group did not like. that is where his heart is, he's closer to boehner and mccarthy and his tactical views, even though he's quite conservative. those battles are coming, that creates scar tissue, and a scar tissue if he were to run for president, you would have to explain, or you would have to have people out there in the grassroots saying, you sold us out. charlie: we talked about democrats and paul ryan and the republican race. we have new polling showing ben carson winning in iowa, beating donald trump in iowa. at the same time we see trump's numbers holding as the other significant fact today. >> if there was a state where you thought donald trump would have trouble, it would be iowa to there is an evangelical vote that somebody could go grab, is not a natural consistency for trump. ben carson works perfectly with that group, the homeschoolers in iowa who have been studying his books, the kids have been, and the parents. they know ben carson and they like him. what is interesting, one, will trump take on ben carson or be

ok with it because he's doing well everywhere else? when he has attacked other candidates, it has been ok because his taste is not like jeb bush. ben carson they like. so what will that look like? the second thing that interests me, ted cruz had and i'm going to emerge in iowa strategy. i will reach out to the evangelicals and pick up these other pockets of the party. he in that same poll you mentioned where ben carson is at the top, you then have rubio, and then cruz. this put some pressure on ted cruz. he's not rising, maybe he can wait his timeout, but i think there's evidence that he might be getting antsy. jeb bush is doing the opposite of rising. while he's not rising, rubio is. charlie: how does the republican race look to you from where you sit? >> the factors john was just outlining there are another reason that jeb bush has to be saying to himself, i cannot believe my life this week,

coming in single digits, collapsing in florida. these iowa numbers, you have carson rsing. -- rising. somebody pointed out to me that totally apart from governor bush's last name, if you look at the message of ben carson and donald trump, we don't trust them, and their antiestablishment message, it's this week saw mike murphy, the early strategies for jeb bush, now in charge of his super pac in california saying that governor bush would last until march, and if after those early states, then would be his strength, but charlie, as you and john know, that's a tough gamble to make. charlie: thank you very much, mike. last word to you, sir. >> you could get back in, charlie.

picking up on mike's point, and with joe biden, who knows. jeb bush has to show that he has some facility somewhere that would allow the scenario mike murphy talks about to happen, which is to say ok, he takes some defeat but when the moment happens, he's there. that has yet to happen on the campaign trail, he has yet to show that he has a talent he can exploit at the right moment. that's the real challenge in addition to the one mike raised, after you lose a bunch of times it's really hard to get up again. charlie: thank you so much. ♪

charlie: john grisham is here. "the new york times" said there is a reason why he moved so many crates of books. his newest novel is called "rogue lawyer." he sells the story of a street lawyer who takes on cases that other lawyers would not touch. i'm pleased to have john grisham back at this table. john: always a pleasure. charlie: this is the 28th book. 28 novels. a collection of stories, and five novels for young readers. john: book number 35 yard -- 35. charlie: unbelievable.

john: stephen king knows i'm behind him and he feels the pressure. charlie: "the client," "the rainmaker," "the street lawyer," "bleachers," "the last jury," and on and on and on. "kid lawyer," "the activist." you are what they call prolific. john: that's over the last 30 years. charlie: that's one a year. john: i write for four or five hours in the morning and when i'm writing, i start a new book january the first, that's my dropdead go, and the goal is to finish by july the first, six months.

charlie: and it will be published when? john: october the 20. charlie: start january, get it to the publisher in june? john: spend a month to do revisions. it goes to press around labor day and it takes a while to print the books. it comes out in october. i have had that schedule for a number of years. charlie: do you have the impression that the critics are catching up with you? john: i don't care. charlie: i said, is it your judgment that you are getting better, they are appreciating you? did you read what "the new york times" said? i'm not even asking if you like it. john: i think at some point in popular fiction and probably all areas of popular culture, whether it's writing or music or film or television, whatever your area is in popular fiction, at some point you have been

around for so long -- charlie: you have to appreciate it. john: or the critics realize at some point you are teflon. charlie: or they see something they had not seen that they do see. john: some books are better than others. you will have a good year with a hook, a really good year or you like something and you think ok -- it's hard to look back on your stuff and judge it. occasionally when you write when you say, this is good. charlie: my name is sebastian rudd and though i am a well-known street lawyer, you will not see my name on billboards, bus benches, or screaming at you from the yellow pages. i don't pay to be seen on television, though i am often there. my name is not listed in any phonebook. i do not maintain a traditional

office. i carry a gun legally because my name and face tend to attract attention from the type of people who also carry guns and don't mind using them. i live alone, usually sleep alone, do not possess the patience and understanding necessary to maintain a friendship. the law is my life, although -- always consuming and occasionally fulfilling. it is more than an overbearing wife who controls the checkbook. there is no way out. that's pretty good. where did we find sebastian? john: you lives in a city of a million people. -- he lives in a city of a million people. he's a lawyer the works out of his van. his chauffeur is his bodyguard, a guy he got off from a murder trial. he takes cases nobody else will take. he's at war with prosecutors, police, politicians, big corporations. he is not above cheating. he thinks if the police and prosecutors start cheating in a

criminal trial, and they often do, that clears him to cheat as well. charlie: he assumes they are, so why not me? john: in the course of the book there, there's more law in that book, more courtroom stuff and all my other books. in the course of the books you go through three different trials. on the last trial, the prosecutor is not cheating. sebastian has a chance to cheat big-time and he says, i'm not going to cheat. the police and prosecutors are trying this case straight and if they are playing straight, i'm going to play straight. if i start cheating, that legitimizes the cheating. he's the kind of guy -- he's the kind of guy you want in the foxhole when you're under attack. this is a pitbull who's also very colorful and has a lot of issues. charlie: and has enough clients, because he doesn't advertise.

there's no billboard that has him. call sebastian. john: he doesn't make a lot of money, but he makes enough to do what he wants to do. he doesn't spend a lot of money. he has no secretary, no office, no overhead. charlie: no girlfriend. john: he's on the prowl but has an ex-wife that drives him nuts. one of the compelling subplots is the fights with his ex-wife. they really are at war with each other. it's some funny stuff. charlie: all of this is from the imagination? john: imagination. i was a lawyer for 10 years. there's a lot of horrible crimes and crimes are so bad nobody wants to get near -- lawyers will run from them. a lot of small counties there's no public defender system so the

cases are assigned i the judge, and there were a couple of cases when i was a young lawyer where as soon as you heard about the trial you go hide in your office, unplug the phone could you do not want the judge to call you. but everybody is entitled to a fair defense at trial. there are always a few lawyers, not many, like sebastian who are going to step up and say, ok, what this person is accused of doing is really awful. i don't care about that. i want to make sure this person gets a fair trial. there are a few lawyers like that in the world. i have always admired them. from the very core of their being as lawyers they believe that everybody is entitled to a fair trial. charlie: do you want to go back ever to the courtroom? john: no. i get sued all the time so i get dragged back to court, but i don't really -- they claim i stole the story from them.

i have not been near a courtroom in a long time. charlie: these are lawyers? john: they come from all over the place. most of them don't file suit but we get a lot of letters from people threatening, you stole my idea. we say, ok, here is my lawyer's response and scare them off. i have not been sued -- every lawyer gets sued. spielberg said one big lawsuit for movies is a pretty good average. you will get sued by enough people who claimed you stole something. i do catch myself all the time, though. we read a lot of bad prosecutions and convictions. a lot of it is bad lawyering by the defense team and i often think, i wish i could have been there and provided a good defense. i wish i could take that case or

maybe a civil case. i wish i could do that. i wish i could play for the cardinals. it's just kind of a fantasy world. i'm not going back to court. charlie: speaking of the cardinals, they are not going to the world series. who is? mets and? john: i don't know. charlie: why are you such a big cardinal fan? john: i grew up that way in the deep south. radio, all you could pick up was harry carey, jack buck every night. charlie: they were cardinal or cubs fans, weren't they? john: i guess. there were no southern teams back then in the early 1960's and 1950's. the cardinals had a huge following back then. i grew up around memphis. memphis is -- they are still a huge cardinal town. charlie: do you have any

ambition? john: i want to own the cardinals. charlie: that is within your budget. john: probably not anymore. charlie: you could on them, have a big equity interest, or the rest of the money. -- borrow the rest of the money. i said, -- john: i said, why did you sell the cardinals? 20 larissa was my buddy and we were hanging out. i was talking to the owner. -- tony larussa was my buddy and we were hanging out. i was talking to the owner. he said, the players union is brutal. the umpires union is brutal. he said, nothing compares to dealing with the other owners. you look around at the owners and you say, he's probably right. they would not be fun in any sport. charlie: how about being commissioner of baseball, would you like that? john: i don't know. it would be an awful lot of work could have gotten lazy.

i'm 60 years old. i can write 3 or 4 hours a day and play a lot of golf and life is good. i don't want to work too hard. charlie: if somebody said you could work 8 hours a day and you would be a much better writer, you would say i doubt that or it's not worth it? john: take a hike. writing "rogue lawyer" was the most fun i've had in a long time. there's a lot more stories to be told from sebastian. i got the kids series going and it's so much fun because 12-year-old kids all over the country enjoy this series. i have to have two more ideas after this one for the next novel. "rogue lawyer" is being published today. by now i'm thinking about the next book. charlie: so start january 1.

john: it's a process i go through. charlie: what the you need to have before you start? -- do you need to have before you start? john: plot. charlie: what's the plot here? john: in "rogue"? it drives a narrative for 400 pages. i've got to have that. charlie: what would be an example of the plot? john: if you look at the book i wrote, a guy commits suicide. that's a pretty good first chapter. charlie: you can develop her, develop him.

john: i'm always looking for compelling 2 or 3 sentence plot. listen to me, i have an idea. i have to pitch it. what is the core plot? i tell young players all the character driven. a lot of smaller plots. the plots all tying together by the last page. charlie: i'm worried about you

not being busy enough and enjoying life too much. john: i'm not worried about you, charlie. [laughter] charlie: not fulfilling your destiny. do you know brian stevenson? john: i met brian last month at a function in d.c. charlie: he's a brilliant lawyer. a brilliant ted talk, he's done it all. he is dedicated to the idea of getting people out of jail off death row. john: he's incredible.

charlie: you take some pride in that, don't you? john: sure. i take a lot of pride in the fact that people read the books, and are entertained at a certain level, but also educated at a different level about certain issues. that is what i tried to do. i don't preach in every book. you can't do that when you write popular fiction. you entertain. i like to include issues along the way, and there are several issues in "rogue lawyer" you will come to that make the reader stop and think about -- charlie: mi for this or against it. john: that's how i approach popular fiction couldn't look at the issue of mass incarceration, harsh sentences -- fiction. sentencing juveniles to life in prison, bryan stevenson issues. should we sentence a 14-year-old kid to prison for the rest of his life? charlie: also big issues about slavery and reparations. in your political place, what are you?

you are progressive. john: progressive moderate democrat. charlie: really the center rather than the left? john: yeah. i'm pretty conservative on fiscal matters. i really get sick of them spending and wasting. i served in the legislature of mississippi for a few terms on a much smaller scale. there was a constitutional amendment to balance the budget every year. what's wrong with that? we learn to do that. most states have that. i'm pretty progressive on social issues. i think pretty conservative on -- charlie: opposed to the death penalty? john: late in life. not when i was a lawyer. charlie: what changed? john: i was in the holding room

where they bring the condemned guy a few hours before, four hours before he dies they put him in a room and he meets with his spiritual advisor and lawyer and they move him to the next room, and it is where the -- that's where the gas chamber is. i was talking to the chaplain of death row. he looked at me and said, mr. grisham, you are a christian, aren't you? i said, yes. he said, do you think jesus would condone what we are doing here, killing people like this? i said, sitting here at this moment it's hard to believe he would condone what we are doing and he said, i don't think he would. this is not right. he said, killing is wrong. how can we justify killing? it was hard for me to come around after being raised in that very conservative southern baptist mentality where you are eye for an eye and all this stuff. charlie, some of the crimes you

read about and some of the people i have met on death row have done things that have defied description. you can't believe how brutal these crimes are. to show compassion for these people, it's difficult. charlie: the book is called "rogue lawyer." when more by john grisham. done it again. john: now available at fine bookstores everywhere. charlie: or online or wherever else. congratulations. john: thank you. my pleasure. charlie: i'm told carolina will have a fantastic team. john: they got almost everybody back from a very good team last year. hit or miss. it's all kentucky and north carolina. virginia is 6. charlie: caroline is your team. john: we go to all uva home games.

i saw you there. we get all the uva home games. . he does not do the one and done thing. really class kids, quality kids. charlie: mike's had one and done for a while. john: they got better with every game, you can see them coming. he wants to keep those kids for 3 years. now they turned pro for $1 million. you can blame the kids, it's

just a bad rule. charlie: to run for governor of virginia, what about that? john: why ruin a good life? i'm not getting back into politics. you want to fly in a helicopter, don't you? [laughter]

♪ (ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...) (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.)

(hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. charlie: the senior vice president of people operations at google is here. you assume the role in the

thousand six. the company has gone from 6000 to almost 60,000 employees. google is consistently ranked as best employer by fortune magazine and others. he is the author of a new book called "work rules, insights from inside google that will transform how you live and lead." i'm pleased to have him back at this table -- at this table for the first time. tony what the book is about. work rules that will transform how you live and lead, and inside look as to how you shape how people work. laszlo: i had this realization that you spend more time at work than with the person you are married to, than with your loved ones, your friends. for most people, it's not a great experience. i google we have been able to experiment a test and try a bunch of things to bring more meaning to work and make people

happier and more productive. the idea behind the book was, what have we done that we can share and what lessons have other companies learned that we can share and try to make work better everywhere. charlie: what did you learn? laszlo: we as individuals make really bad decisions. charlie: about our own worklife? laszlo: worklife, hiring, how we assess people. we're all fundamentally biased. we all find a mentally go through life thinking we are right but we don't often go back and test it. can you imagine business executives sitting around and going, i've got to fire all these people -- they hired these people. something is wrong. we try to understand what is going wrong. charlie: if you fire someone and it is a surprise to them, then you have failed. laszlo: i think he's right. there is something about feedback and honesty and

directness that we owed to people. again, as a manager, that's a really uncomfortable conversation. it's no fun telling somebody they need to get better and coaching them and working with them. but you have an obligation to do it because that's the fair and just thing. we find ways to take pressure off the manager. charlie: you want to take power away from the manager. laszlo: as much as we can. charlie: and give it to home? -- whom? laszlo: the worker. there's a number of things. i google we take power away from integers by not letting them decide who to hire. if you want to hire an assistant, you don't get to decide. you don't decide how much to pay somebody. as a manager, your job should be to make the team better and the people around you more effective. if they are afraid of you or trying tokiss your butt -- to kiss your butt, you will not get their authentic work and you will not see their best work. by stripping that away, all

that's left is for the manager to try to help. if you go to the fundamental assumption of how you think about people, you either think they are good or evil. if they are good, you're going to trust them and give them information. in general, they will do the right thing. every company you talk to they say, you care about your people? yes. but as a practical matter they don't treat them that way because it's not the managers are bad or evil or misguided. when you're in a position of authority you have less information about what is going on. you are not in those meetings straight if you're a finance manager, you don't know what is happening in the details of the accounts. charlie: if you have the right relationship with those people, you will know. laszlo: that's not as efficient as trusting them to do it right. when you are an individual trying to do your job, you care about what are my goals and how do i get there. we did this exhaustive

literature review about performance. the only thing that matters is goalsetting, how often you review performance. you need to have goals. as an employee, you just want the manager to get out of your way and let you get your work done. what happens once you are a manager is you micromanage. not because you're a bad person, but you want to make sure the work gets done. [indiscernible] there's a lot of research. a professor at the university of sheffield looked at 50 different studies and covered 300 different companies and he was trying to figure out what improves productivity. is it statistical processing -- all these techniques. he found one thing across all the studies was giving people general guidance and then the freedom to get things done. charlie: if there's one thing we've learned so far, delegate and give freedom to the people

on the firing line. laszlo: it's important to have goals and make those goals transparent. at google we have objectives and key results. it's a goalsetting system. every quarter everyone sets goals and they are visible to everyone in the company. as a manager you are involved in that, you can help set those, and you also can see what everyone is doing. you need that essential high-level alignment and people do great things. charlie: the most important thing is for everybody to understand how they can make the team better, how their contribution is essential to the overall contribution. it's like a football team. laszlo: the reality is in most workplaces it does not end up that way. charlie: why is that? laszlo: i think part of it is people live in fear and a lot of workplaces. anybody who is a manager also has a manager and they want to make sure they look good, they deliver, they do the right things. instead of doing everything all-time what they think is the right or best thing for a

customer, for example, they will say here is the rule, here is the policy. you have all these misalignments of incentives which add up to working out of a controlling place rather than a place where intellectual humility. how does that work? laszlo: you can have a big ego. when you get new information, you recognize that new information. there's a story about winston churchill, who's being questioned by a reporter and he changes positions on something and he looked down from the

podium and said, when the facts change, sir, so do my opinion. you need to be able to do that otherwise you will never learn and grow in you will be fighting internally all the time. we look for that. that constant learning is key to growth and success. charlie: so be open all the time. laszlo: we were making that mistake left and right. we don't focus on where you went to school, when your grades work it we focus on what you have done an accomplished and your trajectory. we cast a wide net. we get 3 million applications a year. the very best people aren't looking for jobs because they are doing great work, there in great environments, they are valued and doing high-performance things. he spent a lot of time and effort looking for these people hoping someday they will have a bad day at work and think about joining us. charlie: what is the x factor that you look for in a human being even though they may not have gone to the right school, they may not have the right degree, may not have had all of the widening of experience that

someone in a different environment has had? laszlo: the single biggest protector of whether somebody will be successful across any profession is what we call general cognitive ability. it's not iq testing. iq has racial and gender bias. the ability to solve a wide range of problems, we look for that, number one. the second thing we look for in leadership. it's a particular kind we call emergent leadership. not just you are president of the chess club or vice president, it's when you see a problem, you step in and try to solve it even if it's not your job. just as importantly, you relinquish power. larry and sir gay could have run this place anyway they want it but they actually said, you figure out which product, and they pull themselves back overtime.

the workforce is largely high school graduates, family-owned firm, the margins are 1% or 2%. they still instilled a sense of ownership and meaning and autonomy in the work and it served them well for 67 years even though it's a very different business. charlie: give your work meaning, trust your people, if you give people freedom they will amaze you, hire people who are better than you. those are the people you learn

from. laszlo: yes. it's kind of selfish as well. if you're hiring people better than you, your job gets easier. number four, don't confuse development with managing performance. five, focus on the two tales. absolute worst? laszlo: part of the premise is

you are doing hiring in a thoughtful, unbiased, objective way, which means you don't have to fire a lot of people. in our case would happens is we actually periodically go through and identify our bottom 5%. we tell them and try to get them better. 1/3 of the time they get better. 2/3 of the time they don't and we have them switch jobs. 80% of the time there, about 50% overall, they actually get better. we have put them in the wrong job. hr departments typically make the assumption that human performance follows a normal distribution. you have your top 10, bottom 10. if you look at sports, it follows the power line distribution.

there's a few people who are so exceptionally good, so much better than everybody else, that they pull the whole curve up. if you plot average performance across these industries which you will find is that most people in basketball actually perform below average. nobody looks at it and says, it's crazy. charlie: that's an interesting argument. some people will say you need a couple of superstars, but you don't need five superstars because if you have too many superstars, they will begin to step all over each other. laszlo: that gets to hiring and the kind of profile you're looking for. if you have people who can work together, who are intellectually humble -- it doesn't matter if they have huge egos. if they can admit new information and say i'm amazing, but i was wrong on these three things and thank you i will do it differently -- and now i will do it differently --

charlie: you know what else i think? you wrote the book and you are the expert. we think we are praising, but we're not praising enough, we're justifying. -- justifying people who are managers straight you think you are praising someone, you think you are nudging, you think you are giving credit where credit -- in their perception, you do not recognize enough. laszlo: academic research on this shows that people feel negative feedback with 10 times the intensity of positive feedback. most positive feedback is also not particularly specific. negative feedback is, you screwed up this presentation, you're a bonehead. positive feedback is, great job. you need to not only be more frequent with it, but specific so people know, when you are sitting at this table, you lead a certain way and i came across or you didn't. that specificity makes the feedback much more meaningful. charlie: finally, managed the

rising expectations. laszlo: my thesis is that basically there's two ways to run a business. one is to treat people badly. this enough people who need work. you can grind through them. the other is to do what we try to do and what wegmans has tried to do, treat people well, you get more for it. as soon as you say we are going to do these great things for you, people have been to a quickly. -- habituate quickly. you need to let people know, we are trying this, we're embarking on a journey and we will see how it goes. charlie: number 10 is enjoy, then go back to number one and start all over again. laszlo: it takes practice to get these things right. charlie: is google different now that there is an alphabet holding company? laszlo: it is and isn't. they built a great business. they have run this thing from day one. what they are really exceptional at is seeing 10 years out, 15

years out. that's what they want to focus on. charlie: insights from google that will transform how you live and lead. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪