The Better Way? Podcast

As the final votes are counted, Zach and Hui use the U.S. midterms elections, and the potential for a shift in political power, as a starting point to explore a broader question: what makes oversight effective? Drawing parallels between government and corporate governance, they examine the limitations of independence on paper, the challenges boards face when information is filtered through management, and why accountability depends not just on structure but on culture, incentives, and the willingness to ask difficult questions. The discussion then turns to one of the most persistent challenges in ethics and compliance: what happens when the boss is wrong? They explore why organizations too often rely on individual courage to surface concerns; why speaking up remains risky in many workplaces; and how boards, compliance officers, and leaders can build systems that make accountability routine rather than heroic. In an era marked by growing public skepticism and declining trust in institutions, they argue that credibility is earned through transparency, scrutiny, and consistent follow-through, not slogans or organizational charts.

In a world where public trust in institutions continues to erode, organizations face a growing credibility challenge. Employees, customers, investors, and communities are increasingly skeptical of whether decisions are being made fairly, independently, and in the interests of the organization rather than a privileged few. Against that backdrop, conflicts of interest are no longer just a compliance issue. They are a trust issue.In this episode, Zach and Hui explore why traditional conflict-of-interest programs focus so heavily on certifications, disclosures, gifts, and other easily measurable activities while overlooking the more consequential question: who influences important decisions and why? Drawing on examples from government, corporate compliance, procurement, and organizational culture, they argue that companies need to move beyond check-the-box procedures and spend more time focused on patterns of influence, decision-making, and trust building. Because the goal isn't to eliminate conflicts. It's to identify and manage them before they undermine credibility, culture, or good judgment.

The future of compliance and HR is "wide open," but getting there may require a different way of thinking. Ethico Co-CEO Nick Gallo joins Zach and Hui for a candid conversation about influence, culture, measurement, and the opportunity for both functions to move beyond activities and become more meaningful drivers of organizational success.The conversation spans culture, influence, board reporting, measurement, and the challenge of moving from activity-based reporting to outcome-based impact. In a lively rapid-fire exchange, Zach, Hui, and Nick debate which practices should be retired, the ideas everyone talks about but few fully embrace, what boards should be asking management, and why the future of compliance and HR may belong to those willing to challenge old assumptions, tell better stories, and make new bets. 

What is the purpose of board and executive reporting? In this episode, Zach and Hui take aim at the traditional compliance report: the familiar mix of enforcement headlines, activity metrics, and reassuring conclusions that suggest everything is under control. They argue that too many reports are designed to make compliance look good rather than help leaders govern effectively, relying on metrics and assumptions that create the appearance of success without demonstrating real impact.The conversation explores why the strongest compliance programs embrace curiosity, uncertainty, and difficult questions. Zach and Hui also discuss why outcomes matter more than activities, how "good news" can sometimes obscure meaningful risks, and why boards need insight rather than dashboards full of green indicators. Along the way, they offer practical ideas for creating more valuable board reports by shifting from activities to insights, from certainty to inquiry, and from reassurance to reality.

Nearly everyone believes they're curious, yet far fewer feel empowered to ask questions, challenge assumptions, or explore new ideas at work. In this episode, Katie Miserany, Chief Communications Officer and Global Head of Marketing at SurveyMonkey, joins Zach and Hui to discuss the company's State of Curiosity 2026 report and what it reveals about the gap between individual curiosity and organizational culture. Together, they examine why employees hesitate to ask questions, challenge assumptions, or slow down long enough to surface better ideas.Katie also discusses how leaders can avoid mistaking speed for progress, why better inputs matter more than faster outputs, and how organizations can create psychological safety, meaningful brainstorming opportunities, and stronger cross-functional connections. Along the way, we explore AI, surveys, leadership, creative thinking, and what it really takes to build a culture that rewards learning instead of certainty.

At the halfway point of the year, Zach and Hui pause to reflect on the ideas that have defined recent conversations in compliance, ethics, and culture. From the role of curiosity as a professional superpower to the growing push toward outcome-based reporting, they unpack why critical thinking—and better questions—remain at the heart of effective programs. Along the way, they highlight the persistent gap between activity and impact, and why simply doing more isn’t the same as doing better.They also dig into today’s productivity obsession and what it’s getting wrong, including the unintended consequences for culture, innovation, and decision-making. With insights ranging from inefficient meetings to shifting enforcement dynamics, the conversation ultimately points to a deeper issue: many compliance functions still lack a clear, articulated strategy. The episode closes with a call to move beyond outputs, rethink long-held assumptions, and build programs that are truly aligned with meaningful outcomes.

What really drives corporate scandals?  In this episode, Zach and Hui sit down with Professor Guido Palazzo, co-author of The Dark Pattern, to explore how organizational environments shape behavior in ways that go far beyond individual intent or values. Drawing on cases like Wells Fargo, Theranos, and Boeing, Guido explains why misconduct is rarely about intent alone—and instead emerges from a powerful mix of pressure, incentives, culture, and context that can override judgment and values.They walk through the nine elements of the “dark pattern,” a set of recurring conditions that show up across major corporate scandals. Along the way, they also challenge the limits of “do the right thing” messaging and explore what it actually takes to build cultures where people can navigate ambiguity, speak up, and make better decisions. The result is a deeper understanding of how context shapes behavior in powerful and predictable ways.

We all complain about meetings—in fact, they just might be one of the biggest unmanaged investments in your organization. Is there a better way? In this episode, Zach and Hui sit down with Dr. Steven Rogelberg, one of the world’s leading experts on the science of meetings, to unpack why meetings so often fail—and what leaders get wrong about fixing them. From the surprising truth about agendas to the staggering scale and cost of meetings, this conversation reframes meetings as a critical (and under-managed) business investment.Dr. Rogelberg shares practical, research-backed tools you can start using immediately: structuring agendas as questions, shrinking meeting times, rethinking who really needs to attend, and shifting from dominating conversations to facilitating them. The result? Meetings that are shorter, more engaging, and worth the time. If you’ve ever felt trapped in a calendar full of ineffective meetings, this episode offers a clear—and refreshingly doable—better way.

In this episode of The Better Way, Zach shares reflections from an unusual professional crossover: serving on a criminal jury in a high‑stakes, multi‑week trial. What he experienced in the courtroom and the jury room—confusion caused by complexity, the absence of a coherent story, opaque instructions written in legalese, and the emotional weight of being questioned—sparked a series of insights that directly mirror some of compliance’s biggest challenges. From training that ignores people’s time, to investigations that underestimate the stress of being interviewed, the jury experience became a case study in how easily good intentions can be undermined by poor design.Zach and Hui explore what this experience teaches compliance professionals about prioritizing clarity over volume, outcomes over outputs, and listening over simply encouraging people to speak up. They also examine the uncomfortable question of evidence: could compliance leaders credibly testify to a “reasonable degree of compliance certainty,” that their programs actually work? The conversation ultimately reinforces a core truth—compliance, like justice, is not just about rules; it’s about people, behavior, and designing systems that work in the real world.

When the DOJ sneezes, the compliance community has a habit of mad dashing to the emergency room. And that’s pretty much what happened when the Department of Justice rolled out its “new” Corporate Enforcement Policy last month. And so, in this episode of The Better Way?, Zach and Hui—somewhat reluctantly—provide a high-level overview of the policy itself, before digging into a recent Law360 article Hui wrote in response. Together, they separate what’s truly new from what’s largely recycled and explain why the policy’s promises of clarity and certainty are far more complicated than the headlines suggest.Hui argues that the policy rests on an assumption that no longer holds: a stable, predictable enforcement environment. She points to shifting prosecutorial priorities, declining capacity, increased politicization, and a changing bargaining landscape. Instead of treating disclosure as the default “right” answer, Hui calls for rigorous critical thinking: weighing the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of detection, and the real‑world consequences of each option. Along the way, the conversation reframes the compliance program not as a shield against prosecution, but as a tool for detecting signals and enabling better decisions. The takeaway: slow down, look past the hype and headlines, and ground compliance decisions in context, evidence, and thoughtful analysis—not fear.