Section 1: Episode Teaser (00:00–00:59)

[00:00:00] Nancy Gibbs: It's not to say that ambition is overrated, but there are lots of ways to be ambitious. And there's nothing wrong with climbing a ladder—but you want to be sure you're on the ladder you want to be on, and that it's taking you somewhere that you want to go, as opposed to climbing for the sake of climbing.

[00:00:30] Michael Oved: Someone's still in school, or someone's working a full-time job—what should they do if they want a successful career in journalism?

[00:00:45] Nancy Gibbs: Try to be really deliberate about your information diet—changing the lens through which you're watching events unfold. Because I think right now, that ability is essential to understanding.

Section 2: Introduction (01:00–02:59)

[00:01:00] Michael Oved: Welcome back to 30 Years in 30 Minutes. I'm your host, Michael Oved, and we've got a great episode for you today. With that, it is my pleasure to introduce you to today’s guest.

Nancy Gibbs is an award-winning writer, speaker, presidential historian, and the former Editor-in-Chief of Time magazine, directing news and feature coverage across all platforms for more than 65 million readers worldwide.

Nancy is one of the most published writers in the history of Time, having covered four presidential campaigns and 175 cover stories—more than any other writer.

In March 2018, she joined the faculty of the Harvard Kennedy School. In April 2019, she was named the Faculty Director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. And in May, she was named the Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Practice.

She’s the co-author, along with Michael Duffy, of two bestselling presidential histories: The Presidents Club: Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity, which spent 30 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, and The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House.

[00:02:55] Michael Oved: Professor, thank you again for joining us today.

[00:02:57] Nancy Gibbs: Nice to be with you.

Section 3: Early Journalism Journey (03:00–04:59)

[00:03:00] Michael Oved: Professor, what experiences in your childhood—and what about your upbringing—piqued your interest in journalism?

[00:03:05] Nancy Gibbs: I wasn't actually interested in journalism particularly, growing up. I enjoyed writing enormously, but my first job in journalism was almost an accident. It had to do with what summer job I could get.

I thought I would be a terrible camp counselor, or a diner waitress. I looked at the jobs available to a 16-year-old, and getting an internship at a small newspaper felt like that would be more fun than the alternatives.

So I was very interested and enjoyed writing a lot. Journalism was not something I thought about—partly because I assumed journalism involved going out and getting people to tell you things, and that terrified me. So I was actually sort of actively hostile to what I thought a journalistic career involved.

[00:04:00] Michael Oved: So then what changed your mind?

[00:04:02] Nancy Gibbs: That took a long time. It was the interest in writing and storytelling—and maybe the arrogant notion of writing the first draft of history.

I was a history major in college, and I was very interested in what is now called nonfiction narrative—trying to make sense of events in real time.

The job that I wanted was at one of the news magazines, which were still enormously powerful. Time and Newsweek had huge audiences and huge access to newsmakers.

And importantly, for someone who was shy and scared of people, they didn’t require their writers to actually go out and interact with humans. They had a whole army of terrific correspondents—great investigators who would gather the news, get people to tell them things, unearth documents, do the real important exploratory work of journalism.

We were the explanatory part. All of their reporting would come into New York, and the job of the writers was to turn those into seamless narratives.

So it was perfect for people who liked to write and were terrified of stepping foot outside into the real world.

Section 4: Chautauqua and Lifelong Learning (05:00–06:59)

[00:05:00] Nancy Gibbs: That first summer job was with the Chautauqua Daily, and the Chautauqua Daily only exists for two months a year—during the July and August period when the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York puts on a summer season of lectures and concerts and classes and seminars.

So the Chautauqua Daily was basically to tell people at Chautauqua what’s going on today, who’s coming to speak, review the previous night’s concert.

And so it was actually kind of amazing, the people I got to interview—just by virtue of being assigned to cover the morning lectures—because the world kind of came to Chautauqua.

So, as I say, accidental, but tremendously fun and interesting.

[00:06:00] Michael Oved: The Chautauqua Institute really was a place filled with all these sorts of artists, educators, and thinkers of all different backgrounds and opinions and perspectives. What lessons did you learn there that best prepared you for your time in journalism—and at Time?

[00:06:15] Nancy Gibbs: I think both my brother and I would say, as many kids who spent summers in Chautauqua would say, that it really was formative. Nothing against our formal educations, but this idea of people coming together in the summer in their free time and choosing to try to understand things better, to engage with people who disagree with them—

This whole idea that we talk about now as “civil discourse”—that was really the founding principle. Chautauqua was founded 150 years ago with the idea that people should keep learning all through their life.

The oldest continuous book club in America is the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle.

So I think the idea that you are never done learning—and that your life will be enriched if you are around other curious people—really stuck with me.

Curiosity is the fuel system of journalism.

And while I wouldn't have put them together at the time, I think the underlying fabric of Chautauqua and its mission very much influenced how I came to think about the world, and my curiosity about it, and my desire to try to make sense of it.

Section 5: Information Diet & Career Entry (07:00–09:59)

[00:07:00] Michael Oved: For the people who don't have access to places like the Chautauqua Institute—who want to expand their worldview and surround themselves with people similar to those who spend time there—what advice would you give them about how they can attain, or have, those types of experiences?

[00:07:17] Nancy Gibbs: Well, the nice thing is, when Chautauqua was founded—we joke that it was the original internet—because its principle was to connect people and expose them to ideas and information they couldn't otherwise access.

Now, while it's obviously not the same as gathering in a wooden amphitheater with 6,000 people, it's also less necessary in the sense that access to information has never been greater.

What I tell my students now is: try to be really deliberate about your information diet. If you find yourself getting most of your information from the same news sources, the same newsletters, the same writers and outlets—build in some exploration.

Start watching news or subscribing to newsletters or visiting websites or listening to podcasts from a different part of the ideological spectrum, or from different countries.

[00:08:00] That way, you’re changing the lens through which you're watching events unfold. I think right now, that ability—to vary your information diet—is essential to understanding where our country, and many others, are politically, socially, and culturally.

The information environment is the core underlying challenge we face in trying to move society forward. And so, I think what individuals should do, wherever they fit into the picture, is be deliberate about seeking out sources and perspectives they wouldn’t normally read, watch, or hear.

[00:08:50] Michael Oved: And the hope is that this would create some sort of curiosity—

[00:08:53] Nancy Gibbs: Create curiosity, yes—but also create understanding. You often hear people who not only disagree about some hot-button issue, but who can’t even understand how someone could think differently.

[00:09:00] That’s partly because we encounter caricatures of other people’s points of view. But it’s also because we’re living in different information environments.

It becomes much easier to understand why people may disagree—on the most important challenges, the best solutions—if you’ve walked in their shoes, or at least traveled through the same information environment they have.

Section 6: Getting in the Door at Time (10:00–11:59)

[00:10:00] Michael Oved: You graduated from Oxford in 1984 with a Master's in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. In 1985, you started at Time magazine. What made you want to go to Time, and how did you get a job there?

[00:10:14] Nancy Gibbs: I first started trying to get Time and Newsweek to consider me while I was still finishing at Oxford. They both had hiring freezes—it was going to be impossible to get in the door.

I was introduced to people—this is where friends of friends, mentors, college professors, anyone who could get your letter (this was long before emails) to the top of the pile—made a difference. I was actually able to get in the door at both places and talk to a human.

But I really didn’t have any journalistic experience, and both places were still extremely traditional in their hiring. It took lawsuits before women could even be hired, by and large, as writers and editors.

[00:11:00] I finally got hired as a part-time fact checker. That was sort of the only way in the door. There were fact checkers who’d been in that role for 10, 20, even 30 years. It wasn't a “mailroom-to-editor” path—except that these institutions were both losing lawsuits, and more importantly, realizing that a narrow set of experiences and perspectives in decision-making was bad for business.

One thing that happened when I was hired: Time brought on its first male fact-checkers. The minute there were both men and women in that job, it became an entry-level position.

After two years of fact-checking, I was given a tryout as a writer—and from then on, I was able to move into that role.

Section 7: Learning by Watching (12:00–14:00)

[00:12:00] Nancy Gibbs: I will say: if I had it to do over again, and if they’d been crazy enough to hire me straight out as a writer, I likely would’ve failed.

The fact that I got to spend time in this incredibly rich environment of writers and editors and reporters—watching from the sidelines, cultivating relationships with mentors, learning the ropes, figuring out what was valued, and how to build those skills—without the pressure to produce a story, was enormously valuable.

It was like going to graduate school in news magazine writing before having to perform on the spot. I’m actually incredibly grateful for that.

[00:13:00] Michael Oved: And that goes back to what you were saying about altering your worldview and understanding the world. So for people just coming out of college—if they’re given a low-level job they don’t want—would you advise them to stick with it, to expand their worldview and learn from those around them?

[00:13:18] Nancy Gibbs: If you feel like you're just marking time and paying dues in the hope you’ll be rewarded for being a good soldier, that’s a different calculation.

But if the work itself is interesting, challenging, and you're learning—even if it's low-level and unglamorous—and especially if it puts you in contact with people who are invested in your growth, then it can be incredibly worthwhile.

That’s harder now: so many jobs are remote or hybrid. The pace of journalism pre-internet allowed for things like two-hour lunches with senior editors to talk about the world or about writing. It was unbelievably luxurious in that sense.

Now, senior people have far less time to train young people. But even so, those entry-level jobs can be incredibly valuable—not just to get a foot in the door, but to understand what people do, how organizations work, what values and influence look like inside an institution.

Section 8: Climbing the Ladder Intentionally (15:00–17:59)

[00:15:00] Michael Oved: So when you were in that lower-stakes position at Time magazine, did you have your eye on the prize? Did you know when you came in that you wanted to be editor-in-chief?

[00:15:12] Nancy Gibbs: I didn't know when they first talked to me about becoming editor-in-chief—20 years later—whether I wanted to do it, so I certainly didn’t know at the time. That was a little weird for the leaders of the company because they were used to ambitious people jostling for the job and maneuvering and trying to climb the ladder.

And I really, really loved being a writer. I thought it was the best imaginable job. Over time, it became more common for writers to also be going out and reporting stories. That’s how I got to interview so many presidents. It was like—you are being paid to be curious. You’re being paid to find things out and tell people about them. Why would I want to do anything else?

Especially, why would I want to stop doing that to manage budgets, personnel, business model challenges, and go to meetings?

[00:16:00] When I looked at the day-to-day life of journalists versus editors and managers—it wasn’t even a close call.

So when they first tried to promote me, I said, “No, thank you very much.” I liked what I was doing. The way they got me to say yes—this sounds ridiculous—they said, “Of course you can keep writing. We don’t want to lose you as a writer, so we hope you’ll continue writing even as you become an editor.”

I thought, okay, that sounds like a reasonable compromise. Except it wasn’t a compromise—it was, “You’re welcome to do two jobs, if you’d like.”

The point is, it’s not that ambition is overrated. But there are lots of ways to be ambitious. There’s nothing wrong with climbing a ladder—you just want to make sure you're on the ladder you actually want to be on. That it’s taking you somewhere you want to go—not just climbing for the sake of climbing.

[00:17:00] I loved what I was doing. It was meaningful, stimulating, and let me spend time with people who inspired me.

So what would motivate me to change that? Maybe you need more money to pay tuition, or take care of sick parents—those are valid motivations. Or maybe you think you can do more good or have greater impact in another role, even if you enjoy it less. That’s a fair tradeoff.

But it’s worth interrogating your motives. If we all just assume we’re supposed to be ambitious and take promotions at the expense of our quality of life or happiness—those are important conversations to have. With yourself, and with others.

I think all of us need our private board of directors. Have that conversation with them. Let them push you: “Why are you taking this promotion? Do the reasons really make sense—holistically?”

Section 9: Collaborative Leadership at Time (18:00–20:59)

[00:18:00] Michael Oved: Going back to what you said earlier—about how you weren’t as cutthroat as they expected, especially as you rose to the top of a major publication—what did you do that set you apart? How did you rise to the top of Time?

[00:18:15] Nancy Gibbs: I think there are a lot of different leadership styles. And I think it helps that leadership roles are now filled by people with different kinds of backgrounds—and by background, I don’t just mean race, gender, or ethnicity, but also different kinds of ambition and leadership styles.

My conviction as I moved into leadership was this: if my goal is for the organization to succeed, then I want as many really talented people playing at the top of their game as possible.

[00:19:00] If my definition of leadership were that I had to be the best at everything the organization did, we were going to fail.

Instead, I thought: the people in charge of photography and art direction have the greatest visual sense. I should defer to them. The investigative reporters are better at finding things out. My job is to hire them, empower them, enable them, and get out of their way.

That’s how I defined success. It depends on collaboration, trust, and a willingness to challenge each other—without worrying someone’s going to stab you in the back.

Journalism, and especially Time, was a very collaborative place. This fall, Time’s Washington Bureau held a reunion. People who hadn’t worked there for 20 or 30 years flew in from all over the country.

[00:20:00] That kind of connection—the investment people felt in one another and in the organization—that’s the culture I was trying to create. And I think the people who put me in leadership believed that this style of leadership would give the institution the best shot at succeeding.

Section 10: Hiring, Confidence, and Cultural Fit (21:00–23:00)

[00:21:00] Michael Oved: How do you develop the trait of fostering an environment like that?

[00:21:04] Nancy Gibbs: First of all—and I’m sure I won’t be the only person on this podcast to say this—a huge amount of your success depends on who you hire.

I’ve had people say, 95% of your success is who you hire. And if you get that right, then the challenges and curveballs that come your way afterward will be easier to manage.

What does it mean to hire well? It’s not just about intelligence or a résumé. I hired for disposition. I looked for people who I thought would thrive in the kind of environment we were trying to build.

This isn’t a matter of “better or worse”—it’s about fit. There are incredibly talented journalists who just wouldn’t be a good fit for the way we wanted to do things. They wouldn’t be happy, and neither would we.

[00:22:00] I actually think knowing what you’re looking for in people—and hiring accordingly—is critically important.

Another part is confidence. Insecurity is fatal in leaders. It can manifest in many ways, but one big one is being threatened by talent.

I wanted people around me who were better than I was. That was my baseline. If you’re threatened by that, you won’t hire them—or elevate them—and then the whole thing collapses.

If you’re confident in your vision, and confident in the people around you, then you can afford to build something bigger than yourself.

Section 11: Authenticity, Leadership & Fear (24:00–31:59)

[00:24:00] Michael Oved: You are the first female editor-in-chief in Time magazine’s history. How did you navigate that?

[00:24:08] Nancy Gibbs: I sound so cliché, but if you're not being true to yourself in the way you're going about the work every day, I just don't see how it works. If you're trying to perform a role or embrace a set of standards and expectations that aren't authentic to you—because you think that’s what the job demands—well, that to me is dancing backwards in high heels. That just makes it harder.

I only became comfortable accepting the role of editor-in-chief—which I was apprehensive about—I thought it would put a lot of stress on my family and the other things I cared about. I worried about whether I could be good at it. I had lots of concerns. But one of them was, are they going to trust me to do it the way I think the job should be done?

So I would say to anyone—male or female—going into a role: you’ll never have perfect visibility into what it requires. But to the extent possible, you should know whether you'll be able to perform it according to your values and your vision. That’s what lets you be authentic. I know that word is overused, but I think it gets at something really core—that goes to being not just successful, but happy, in anything we do.

[00:25:00] Michael Oved: You must’ve brought with you a lot of authenticity, because under your leadership—and I don't want to get this wrong, so I’m going to read it off my paper here—Time’s digital audience grew from 25 to 55 million. Its video streams passed one billion a year. Time also won a Primetime Emmy Award for its two-part “A Year in Space” documentary, and the ASME award for Cover of the Year in 2016.

How did you do it? How did you grow the company so much in such a critical time—not only in journalism, but in Time’s history?

[00:25:38] Nancy Gibbs: You know, we won Cover of the Year because I had an amazing art director. And we grew our video streams and won the Emmy because, like many places, we needed to recruit a whole different kind of talent than the people who’d been working in newsrooms 10 years earlier.

But the most important part is: this was a period where, if you weren’t growing that way, you were dying.

[00:26:00] That was hard for legacy organizations. The focus used to be: what’s on the front page of the newspaper, what’s on the cover of Time, what leads the evening newscast. And shifting to all things digital—reaching new audiences on new platforms with new storytelling—was a hard adjustment for people who had lived through the glory days of traditional publishing.

So one of the most important things I did was not only hire a really talented deputy focused entirely on digital growth, but also make sure that everyone in the newsroom saw me in his office—or him in mine—hour after hour. Because how I used my time was the clearest signal of what I thought was important. And the fact that I was spending so much of it with our digital team told the rest of the newsroom: this matters.

[00:27:00] Michael Oved: Did you have any failures while you were editor-in-chief—or on your way to that position? And how did you overcome them?

[00:27:07] Nancy Gibbs: Oh, sure. I mean, fortunately… I went to bed every night terrified that we’d publish something wrong—which is already a problem—or harmful, which is even worse. Defamatory, misleading—it’s really scary.

As the volume of content went up—shifting from being a weekly magazine to a 24/7 digital operation—the opportunities for failure increased exponentially. I’d go to bed afraid of what some 29-year-old editor overseas might post overnight on the website.

Fortunately—thank my stars—I got through my tenure without a huge scandal. But that fear of failure, even when you’re not directly involved, is terrifying.

I think leaders have to find ways to manage the reality that they’re going to be responsible. You have to take responsibility. And your people have to trust that you will take responsibility, even if you weren’t directly involved in the mistake.

[00:28:59] Michael Oved: A lot of entrepreneurs talk about the importance of overcoming failure—of looking failure in the eye and saying, “You’re not going to consume me.” So how did you deal with failure throughout your career?

[00:29:13] Nancy Gibbs: I think you answered your own question. If you give fear enough power to stop you from accomplishing what you want—then just stand down. Don’t do it.

And I think there are valid reasons why some people don’t want to be leaders. That’s totally respectable. Leadership is overrated. Some people are really well-suited to it. Others aren’t. That’s not a moral failure.

How we manage our fears—and there are lots of kinds—is the real question. Fear of failure is only one. But whether we let our fears consume us is kind of like the same spectrum between bitterness and gratitude. Most things that happen, you can interpret either way.

[00:30:00] And while there’s a lot we can’t control, we can control how much our fears or our bitterness consume us. Those are disciplines. Muscles we can build—not easily, but over time.

Again, I go back to the idea of a private board of directors. One way to manage fear is to share it—with people you trust. People who’ll say, “You’re wrong, you need to rethink this,” or “Yes, it’s a risk, but it’s worth taking—and here’s why.”

That kind of counsel doesn’t mean you won’t fail, but it lets you move forward with more confidence. Because you have people who will tell you the truth—even when you’re being an idiot.

Section 12: Advice for the Next Editor-in-Chief (32:00–33:59)

[00:31:59] Michael Oved: So based on all your experiences—your successes, your failures—you’re speaking to someone who wants to be the next editor-in-chief of Time magazine. What advice would you give them? What can listeners do right now to best prepare for that role?

[00:32:13] Nancy Gibbs: That’s a great question.

Well, Time specifically is one of a shrinking number of institutions that’s trying to speak to a very broad audience. The cliché now is: the riches are in the niches. More and more startups tailor themselves to very specific audiences—because those are easier to monetize.

But Time, now a hundred years old, has always tried to speak broadly. And the only way to do that is to—going back to what we talked about earlier—broaden your lens. Broaden your exposure.

[00:33:00] Not just to people in cities, but rural areas. Not just the left, but the right. And not just the right, but the left. And most importantly—the vast group in between. The people who aren’t tweeting all day or posting about politics.

All the research shows: most people don’t hold extreme views. Most people aren’t loud online. So how do you build a radar array that helps you understand what those people are concerned about?

What do they really want to know more about? What stories matter to them?

What information is actually useful—so they can live successful lives? As citizens, as parents, as members of their community?

That’s the challenge for an editor-in-chief of Time. To open your aperture wide enough to actually understand the people you’re serving.

[00:36:00] Michael Oved: And our last question before the rapid fire questions. What is an actionable item that someone can do right now in order to be a better writer?

[00:36:06] Nancy Gibbs: To write. I wish there were another way. It's the oldest writing advice in the world, but you get better at writing by writing.

[00:36:18] Michael Oved: Because it's an art. It truly is a lost art.

[00:36:22] Nancy Gibbs: Well, I'm struck by how I just heard this week from a parent whose seventh grader in a private school was told there will be no more take-home writing assignments—no more English essays, no more history papers—because it's too hard to know if the robots did the writing.

I think it's going to be harder for people to learn how to write and improve their writing. You can get better, but it won't get easier. I still have trouble writing. I have trouble getting myself to write. The writing itself is hard. I love having written. But the writing itself is—you know, who was it that said, “you open a vein and bleed”?

Which is why it's obvious but difficult advice: you get better at writing by writing—and just as important, by finding good editors. This is maybe where the robots help us. If you write a draft of something and ask the robot to make it sharper or tighter, it can apply editing tools—which you can agree or disagree with.

[00:37:13] But if you find that you have certain leggy turns of phrase or hairball constructions that slow the reader down, the robot will flag those. I don’t discount the idea that robots can help make you a better writer. But you can’t let them do the writing for you.

Section 13: Rapid Fire & Conclusion (36:00–44:00)

[00:36:00] Michael Oved: And now onto the rapid fire questions. Who has been your favorite person to interview?

[00:36:07] Nancy Gibbs: Oh, I would love to give a surprising answer to that. The one that got me the most credit with my kids—which of course is very important when you have young kids, which was a long time ago—was J.K. Rowling, because everyone in the world was obsessed with Harry Potter.

And it’s interesting to interview anyone to whom fame has come suddenly and powerfully. That’s just a fascinating human experience to try to capture.

But occupational hazard—I will always find interviewing presidents fascinating. And the presidents I got to interview run the gamut, from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to George Bush and Donald Trump.

It’s fascinating to see what that job does to people. The qualities that it takes to be good at it. The qualities that turn out not to be very helpful in succeeding at it. And just the pressures of that role and what it takes to carry them. That’s the reason Michael and I have written books on that subject—to try to get at the personal side of the presidency.

We naturally process them as public figures, but they’re still human beings—who may famously hate broccoli or need to be told to pull their socks up. For anyone in any position of leadership, those roles are hard. And presidents are the ultimate example of that. So those will always be my favorite people to interview.

[00:37:59] Michael Oved: And based on all the people you've interviewed, what have you found is the single most common thread between all successful individuals?

[00:38:05] Nancy Gibbs: I think—leave aside the authoritarians—it’s hard to be successful in a lot of roles if you're not a good storyteller and if you don't understand the power of storytelling.

Even if you're incredibly smart, with great processing power, or deep expertise—if you're not able to take that knowledge, those facts, that information, and present it in a way that people can understand, then it doesn’t connect. And the way people understand things is through stories. That’s as old as humanity—since we were gathered around campfires.

Storytelling is a superpower. It makes information compelling and memorable. And that's incredibly valuable in leadership—if you're trying to get people to buy in, to follow where you're trying to go, you have to tell a story about where that is and why it matters.

Can you develop that art? I’m not sure how much is innate and how much is learned. Maybe it’s like being good at math—you can get better, but some people have a gift. Same with storytelling. Some of it might just be instinctive. But you can still improve by reading, studying great storytellers, and doing the autopsies on what makes a good story work.

[00:39:59] Michael Oved: What book do you recommend?

[00:40:00] Nancy Gibbs: The one I most want to read right now isn’t out yet—it’s Kara Swisher’s book. She’s a great tech journalist and storyteller, and she had a front row seat to what I think is the most critical challenge we face: not the death of journalism, but the apocalyptic challenges facing our information environment.

My daughters tease me that I don't read books because I have so much else I have to read. But that one—I’m really looking forward to.

[00:41:00] Michael Oved: What is a quote that you live by?

[00:41:02] Nancy Gibbs: Practice gratitude. It’s a muscle we can all build. And yes, if you're healthy and financially secure, it’s easier to feel grateful. But we all know rich, successful people who are unhappy.

So gratitude is something we have a choice about. And it’s a muscle worth building.

[00:41:59] Michael Oved: And the last question is: what has been the key to your success?

[00:42:01] Nancy Gibbs: I would start with the unconditional love of my parents. They were the wind beneath my wings. I was told from when I was a little kid that I could achieve anything I set my mind to.

It used to drive me crazy—like, “Of course you’ll get into Yale,” they’d say. And I’d think, “It’s really hard to get into Yale!” And then I got in—and it annoyed me that they were right.

But as I think back on it now—my mother is 100 years old, so I’m not speaking of her in the past tense—that belief and encouragement is still there. She’s lived an incredible life. And having people who believe in you, who tell you that you can do it—it’s so powerful.

And doing that for others is a gift we can give.

[00:43:00] Michael Oved: Well, Professor Gibbs, it's been an absolute pleasure to speak with you. An absolute pleasure to have you on. Thank you again for joining us today.

[00:43:08] Nancy Gibbs: Really nice to be with you, Michael. Good luck to you.

[00:43:12] Michael Oved: Thank you for listening to 30 Years in 30 Minutes. Don't forget to like and subscribe—and let us know in the comments if there’s anyone else you want to hear from.