[MUSIC]
Hello everybody and welcome to the RadicalCandor podcast.
Today, surprise, you're going to hear an episode of the Just Work Podcast,
which I co-host with Wesley Faulkner.
We love talking about all the things that can go wrong at work and how to make them right.
And today's podcast is one of the ones we're most proud of.
So we're dropping this into the feed.
I hope you enjoy it as much as we do.
And if you do, check out other episodes at JustWorkTogether.com/podcast.
Thanks.
Hello everybody and welcome to the Just Work Podcast.
I am Kim Scott and--
And I am Wesley Faulkner.
Today, we are really excited to have Dylia.
Kim's been talking about the blog post that you wrote.
And so hopefully we can talk about it that later today.
But Dylia, could you please take a few moments to introduce yourself to our listeners?
Hi, I'm Dylia, Grandival, and so glad to be here, Kim and Wesley.
Thanks for having me.
I am an executive from tech.
I've been working in tech for over 25 years now.
And I work almost everything in the product development life cycle.
My passion is around how people innovate.
And my career is giving me the opportunity to see a lot of it successful and sometimes not
so successful.
So I think that was one of the reasons why when I heard Kim's recent TED talk, I reached
out to her because she's sort of helped me understand some of the terrain under how teams
innovate in a way that I've never heard of that before.
And Dylia, you taught me a word, "Mobbing," which is now that I, you know, how every once
and a while you learn something new and it explains everything and you see it everywhere.
So you did that for me.
Thank you.
We'll talk about that.
All right.
In fact, before I jump into a reading, why don't you tell folks what, what mobbing is, if
you don't mind?
The first thing that pops into mind is it's a TikTok challenge, right?
Mobbing.
Oh, no.
No.
It could be.
It could be and it definitely has its own dance to it, but it's not the kind that we're
used to.
Oftentimes in organizations, people are challenged or don't know how to react to a new
team member or a different team member or someone thinks differently.
And instead of doing all the great things that we know in radical candor, they instead
get very silent and gossipy and sort of join together in a group kind of think kind
of way to target this person and remove them from the situation.
And the reason why they want to do this and that's one of the key tenants is they're trying
to go back to the status quo.
Everything was perfect before so and so arrived and if you can only go back, then everything
would be perfect.
But oftentimes that person's hired into the organization to help change, to make that
mandate move forward.
So it's an interesting phenomenon.
We know it's there, but it's not often named.
Like all of us know exactly what it is.
Yeah.
We hear it and we're like, oh, it had a word.
Yeah.
And my guess is in the research, it's more likely to happen to someone from a historically
marginalized community than someone who is from a historically advantaged community.
Is that correct?
It has some of that component, but not not so much as much as we would think.
It really happens mostly to people who are ambitious.
Yeah.
And then we know that that ambition component is mapped on to being in a marginalized community
because oftentimes, either way, you come back is through ambition.
So that's why I think we would see that more so than the main factor is ambition.
It's this, and not blind ambition, but ambition that makes other people say, well, this is
not the way we were doing the work before.
And so then that makes people so it's more around change and innovation than it is around
the identity.
Cheese mover.
Yeah.
Exactly.
You live with my cheese.
I love it.
OK, well, we're going to talk more about that, but if you don't mind, I'd love-- I've got
a reading from the book formerly known as Just Work, now known as Radical Respect.
And it's a little bit of a longer one, but basically what we've been doing up till now is
sort of outlining a framework that explains the difference between bias, prejudice, and
bullying, and then what happens when you layer power on top and you get discrimination
harassment and physical violations and the different roles that we all play.
And so this is a reading from the chapter on what leaders can do to prevent those things
from happening in their organizations.
And I hope that you and Wesley will give me some radical candor.
Tell me what does--
Absolutely.
I'm ready to rip it apart.
Yeah, rip it apart.
All right.
Bill Walsh, the former head coach of the San Francisco 49ers, explained in his book,
The Score Takes Care of itself, that his job was to win football games, but he couldn't
win those games if he focused too much on the score.
The score was a lagging indicator of what he was doing well or badly as a coach.
He needed to go to back up and understand the leading indicators, behaving ethically,
demanding high standards, holding people accountable, and teaching players the right way to play.
Note that good teamwork, caring about one's colleagues, goes hand in hand with holding
people accountable.
Buyers, prejudice and bullying cause unethical behavior, lower standards, and prevent accountability
and harm collaboration.
All of these things will prevent you from achieving your goals.
Of course, it's not your fault as a leader that bias, prejudice, and bullying are so common,
but you're the boss until it is your problem.
It's not your job to make the whole world just, but it is your job to make your little corner
of the world as fair as possible.
You can't do it by yourself or by executive order.
You're going to need your team's help, and getting that help will require you to make it
safe for them to challenge both you and each other.
This requires what psychologists Jennifer Fryd calls institutional courage.
Institutional courage is a leadership commitment to seek the truth and to take action on
the half of those who trust or depend on the institution, even when it's unpleasant
and difficult and costly.
Institutional courage requires proactive action, for example, creating systems by which
employees can raise concerns without fear of being punished, as well as responsive action,
for example, responding to reports of harm for rightly, thoroughly and fairly.
These efforts can prevent future incidents, allow people harmed to recover more quickly,
increase trust between employees and leaders and enhance the institutional institutions
overall reputation.
On the other hand, institutional betrayal, for example, when an institution mistreats
those who trust or depend on it, only compounds the harm to all involved.
Some common forms of institutional betrayal are victim blaming, sweeping incidents under
the rug and the like.
It can be tempting to engage in these behaviors as a way to save time and money or limit legal
exposure.
Ultimately though, institutional betrayal harms people all over again and will harm your
organization's reputation in the long run.
To demonstrate institutional courage, it's not enough to demonstrate personal courage
as a leader.
You're human.
Sometimes your courage and energy will falter or fail.
You need to develop both proactive and responsive systems that will hold you and others accountable.
Get started.
Don't wait for reports of incidents and problems to come to you.
Be proactive.
All right.
To lay it on me, what do you think?
Well, that's, I think a lot of it's on point, but I want to just give you a comment when
I was listening to institutional courage.
I think a lot of times with HR training and systems.
We are really concerned about taking action, you said, and also making it easy for people
to bring for their complaints.
But we don't talk to employees about taking ethical action.
And I think there's a qualifier there that kind of feeds into this notion of institutional
betrayal.
There, mobbing often lives.
It's not only is the person being bullied or mobbed.
I don't want to say bullied, but this workplace group regression that you can't really put
your finger on, not only is that happening to them, but when they go to the institution to
say, it's kind of weird.
I feel like this thing is happening.
How do you report manipulative and sincerity?
It's, yeah, it's really hard.
Yeah, exactly.
So you do sound a little wacko, right?
So you go there and you're not in this place.
You're not in a way you cannot exactly explain what's happening to you.
So you got that component to it in the betrayal.
But then what I've noticed with groups who mob targets is they actually leverage these
same HR systems.
Yes.
They report actions that aren't ethical in a way that isn't ethical, right?
But they're not held accountable to it because if you're going just by the tick marks, Kim
and Wesley, you're supposed to report and you're supposed to report quickly.
You're not actually supposed to report accurately.
Yes.
Should we believe you should?
We put that in the fine print, but there's no like real accountability around that one.
That is a really important point.
That is a really, really important point.
I can think of an example of that happening to a leader who I knew who was making a lot
of change in this organization and someone who didn't like that change created a Facebook
group.
And then they started making stuff up and reporting it in the HR system and this big investigation
ensued.
And it was very difficult for him to protect himself.
I think that's what you're pointing out is also where it's hard when every individual incident
itself might sound, sound like off or attacking or just not right.
But in these situations, you almost have to look at it as totally.
You have to look at a string and you have to look at the pattern of behavior.
And the Bill Wash example is talking about how the lagging indicators and leading indicators
of how you need to weed out some of that bad behavior, that kind of weird environment
and where people do not feel welcome in order for that ultimate outcome to actually show
itself.
When I was thinking about difficulties in my past, some of the simplistic nature of how
people approach things, it really shows that if you don't take the steps that are needed
to get to the outcome and deal with all of the details, that even though you put something
in the motion that you feel like directly addressing the thing that you're trying to influence,
how it is temporary in the way that it shows itself.
For instance, I was in a job where I was a marketer and my manager at the time, we were running
a promotion and they had me go to all these communities and just post a promotion there,
like spammy behavior.
And it was saying, "By our thing, by our thing, by our thing."
But real marketers are the ones that are able to understand the nuance of the message and
saying, "Find the people, find what they need," and then change your message to really address
their needs.
And it is multiple steps into really getting to the point where you actually see those results.
And in the mob behavior, a mob mentality, the way that you describe it, the mobbing, it's
being able to, it's rejecting things that might challenge the status quo because there is
the same kind of thinking of, "This is the way you do things because we're trying to do
things."
It's a simplest explanation.
And so the mobbing goes into the whole, "This is how we do things because this is how
we have been doing things."
And this is kind of the thing that we're used to.
And so I do like the story, sorry, the reading, and it kind of like ties it all together of
what you're explaining because the changemaker or the person making things better, even though
they're trying, like you mentioned, the HR example is hard to explain, but it is also kind
of like a part of the willingness to say, like, "I'm hired to make this company better.
I'm not hired to kind of like push people down or to put people out of the job.
I want to make this better."
And so I think the reading and the example are just different sides of the same coin.
So I think it's amazing how those worked out together.
I have a question, which is, "How do you, for either of you, but how can you design systems
that simultaneously sort of cherish the whistleblower and also hold the whistleblower accountable
for not lying?"
Yeah, I think a lot of it goes back to also how do we train the whistleblower?
Because I think we need to level up our whistleblowing, at least in organizations, and especially
in organizations like in the tech world, because it's simply just not enough to, you know,
we were really concerned about the psychological safety of whistleblowers, which I think
is number one, like on the Maslow's hierarchy of whistleblowing, that's a lot of be the foundational
thing.
You need to be able to come there and be safe and whatever.
And so we haven't really thought about the rest of the triangle in some ways.
Yeah.
How do we train you to understand, well, why are you doing this whistleblowing?
A lot of times what I observed, because I didn't mention this in the intro, but I am a certified
coach from New Ventures West, and we talk a lot about integrating people's entire life
from that.
And, you know, a lot of times, the way you're being triggered at work is the way you've been
triggered elsewhere.
It's not necessarily the change at work as Wesley was mentioning that's making you feel
that way.
You've never had another way to react to change, right?
So part of that, as you said, Kim, is your boss's responsibility to help you manage through
that?
But, you know, bosses are human.
And there's a lot of people.
It's hard to have, like, you know, get right to the conversation.
And because we prioritize that whistleblowing, psychological safety, sometimes some folks
might go to the whistleblowing before they go to the manager, and it's actually an opportunity
for personal development for them.
But instead, they've leaned to the system.
Do you know what I mean?
Which makes them sort of not even see themselves and the opportunity to grow themselves, but
instead, they are attached to this whole mechanism of reporting, complaining, all of those kinds
of things, which if we're talking about ethical action, ethical complaints, we actually maybe
do a disservice to that whistleblower as well, because we don't give them a chance to grow
the way they should.
Yeah.
It's extremely messy, because sometimes you want to just, there's attribution bias that's,
that I think people struggle with.
This person is doing this because of this instead of actually vis-is-the-thing that I observe
with.
But on the HR side, I think there's also, from a person who has tried to report things to
HR as well, there's not a realization that there's sometimes, or oftentimes, there's not
a perfect victim.
So I know that I've been questioned on, am I performing?
Am I, what are other avenues that I use to try to raise this issue?
So the assumption that the manager themselves have your best interests at heart, and so maybe
it's my misunderstanding, I think the delicate balance between the two saying that there could
be bad actors on both sides, but the question is, how do we sort it out by looking at the
power dynamic is something that often gets missed.
But I think in here to your question, Kim, is that the system itself wants, the system wants
things to be fair?
And I think that all systems are created equal.
And my heart of hearts, I wish that that was a concern that most companies had was making
sure that the systems are fair and that the whistleblower should be protected.
Yeah, so the whistleblower needs to be protected and the investigation process needs to be fair.
And so, I mean, as a general rule, my default is to cherish the whistleblower, listen to
the whistleblower, but there certainly are times where the whistleblower is ganging up with
is mopping instead of really blowing a whistle.
And that's why the fair investigative process needs to be in place.
And that is easier said than done.
I mean, those kinds of, I mean, I, gosh, I can't think of a single moment in my career where
an investigative process I felt great about, you know.
I'm sure that there are companies out there that have good investigative processes, but
I just haven't experienced one.
Yeah, I think we also come in to, like we want it simplified, right?
Works, yeah.
So, let me say Wesley, you want a perfect victim, a perfect target?
Yeah, you know, that's a perfect resolution, you know, and everything, but that's just not
how it works.
And it especially doesn't work that way as we are, as we require these more complex teams
for these more complex ideas, right?
So that's why I feel like, you know, when you were reading Bill Washington, he said the score
is the lagging indicator.
I kind of feel like the system is the lagging indicator in all of these.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, once it gets, once there's been a report, things have gone badly wrong.
I just wanted to pivot real quickly to like the, the blog that I wrote in that what amazes
me in watching the bear for the first time a week ago, which was now right.
Should I watch?
Yeah, oh, for sure.
It's my new topic.
It's my new topic, Dejure.
Oh, yeah.
But what amazes me is that writers can write the situation, Kim, like they write the situation
where everyone's tense, they don't like the changes in the transformations that you're
making.
They don't talk to you, they side-spied, and they talk to each other, and whatever, they
can write it.
So that means we've all seen it.
We all know it.
We're familiar.
And part of the tension of that particular show, I don't want us, spoiler for everybody, is
this feeling of, because we all know that Doomsday feeling like we've seen "Mu and
Girls."
We know what's, we know how this thing goes, right?
Yeah, yeah.
But what amazes me this time is I realize, wow, if writers can write us in, then there's
no reason that we as a story being can't live ourselves out of it.
Yes, we know what you're saying.
I love that.
And so then how do we do that?
And how do we do that?
Part of it is these kinds of conversations.
Yeah, yeah.
It is naming and labeling things.
Like now we have words, like, you know, radical candor, mumbling, we have all of these
words for things we didn't have words for before.
So I think that makes a difference.
And then when you have words, then you can make distinctions, right?
You're saying, well, you know what?
This is just group aggression.
We need these stories to be told more and get them out of the dark corners and sort of
into the light.
So we can, in that psychological safety of being able to report what's truly happening
to you and the organization, we don't have to tell just the foundational, perfect story.
We can actually tell a little complex messy story that includes some of the things that we
actually did too and feel safe about, you know, helping the organization succeed, right?
Because I left it.
You said about Bill Walsh.
He was here to win football games.
We're all on the team to win, right?
Yeah.
So three people walk out, you know, that affects the organization and sort of moves our, moves
us away from what our common goal was, which was to win.
Yeah.
I love that.
As a person who's moved, it's sometimes scary if you have a neighbor who, let's say,
midnight has a roaring party in its loud and you have a choice to make.
Do you walk over and ask nicely for them to lower the music?
Or do you call the cops anonymously?
And they don't know who's complaining.
And if you go over and you ask them nicely and politely and it doesn't go well, then that
kind of towers the relationship.
But if you call the cops, you don't have to deal with that.
And it's almost the same when you have a manager.
When you become a leader of an organization, very often, I think you become like a projection
screen for everyone's unresolved authority issues.
And that's uncomfortable.
It's not your fault, but once again, it is your job.
And so part of the work of being a leader is to earn the trust of the people who you're
leading and to prove to them that you're not going to retaliate if they do come and give
you some critical feedback.
Yeah.
I love that thing you brought in the word trust, too, because when you were telling Bill's
story as well, that trust element is so huge.
And first, you have to trust to be able to come forward.
Then you have to trust how the message will be received.
Then you need to trust that there could be a resolution.
And oftentimes we don't want to talk about those touchy-feely things, right?
We feel like, oh, yeah, trust.
Yeah.
But we don't actually talk about what that word feels like to everyone and where they
experience it in their physical cells as well as where they experience it in the timeline
of their lives.
When you learn to trust and how you learn to trust also impacts how you work with trust as
an adult and in a team.
Absolutely.
So, Deely, I bet you've got a good story about having dealt with mobbing or some other
version of bias prejudice bullying.
I think mobbing is kind of almost a form of group bullying, but you want to lay a story
on us?
Sure.
And I want to actually tie the story back a little bit to what you asked for at the beginning,
asked about the beginning.
You asked a really good question, is mobbing happening to people in marginalized groups?
You know, I'm learning a lot from reading your book and I think, yes, I mean, in one of
my experiences as a manager looking back now, I realized that when we're in the situation
and people might not be able to see, but maybe they go LinkedIn, but I am a black woman,
Canadian, Caribbean descent, right?
So, intact.
And we're in the situation of leadership or often, you know, very, there's very few of us.
I mean, I've worked in organizations where we're just two dozen at the senior levels, etc.
It's not a lot of people.
And there's an expectation that we're going to bring up and move up others in our demographic.
And I'm totally fine with that, but what I learned thinking back on your book and what caused
a sort of a mobbing situation for me in one organization is the people that I moved up
in my so-called demographic, and I really wanted to do that for DEI reasons and all of those
kinds of things, had also been getting feedback from their majority demographic people, managers,
which were in the ruinous empathy domain.
So, I think I'm getting like this popping person, whatever, because everyone's really careful
can.
And west of the around that DEI domain, they don't want to tell a woman something, they don't
want to tell her, you know, the story, right?
And so, I think I'm getting this worker who is like, you know, all firing and are firing
all cylinders, I meant to say, but I'm not getting that because they haven't really gotten
great feedback from their work.
And in this particular situation, it did set up a mobbing scenario because when I started
to give honest feedback in all the ways that I could, following, you know, all the parameters
that I could, it wasn't taken positively because it was the only time that person had gotten
that kind of feedback.
Yeah.
And instead of thinking, well, why was that?
That was the culture of the organization and I get that and also when you're in change
of transformation, I get all those things that were also fueling it, but the person went
to gossip.
And there was a place that they could be heard there, right?
Yeah.
And so, that sort of fueled the whole thing.
So, yeah, I really picked through that situation because I saw, wow, it started really
enruying this empathy for this employee and they moved into my radical candid organization
that didn't know how to handle the feedback because in like some of the examples that you
get when the person was dropping the ball, it was new to them.
Yeah.
And that is so, it is, it is unfortunately very common where you have, where you have a
systemically advantaged boss, shall we?
And I'd love some thoughts on the use of language.
Like is that the right way to, I like the term, sometimes I used to use overrepresented
and underrepresented and a lot of people didn't like that.
So now I'm saying systemically advantaged boss.
So you've got a white man who's the boss, let's say just for example, and then you have
an employee who's not a white man and the boss is reluctant to give feedback to that employee
because they're afraid of getting, quote unquote, and they'll say this often sort of explicitly,
I'm afraid of getting in trouble with HR.
And David Thomas, who's the president of Morehouse College, wrote this great essay about protective
hesitation.
This is like this, where, where the historically advantaged leader fails to give feedback
to someone who is from a, from a historically disadvantaged group because, because they
don't want to be called sexist or racist or, or, or whatnot.
And, and, and then they do the sexist or racist thing by not giving feedback because, you
know, Claude steel writes about this as well and calls it stereotype threat.
And, and he, he did this, in this book, Whistling of Aldi, which is such a beautiful book.
But, but he writes about this experiment where he got a group of white students and he told
them that they were going to talk to other students about affirmative action.
And then he asked them to set up chairs.
And in some cases, he told them they were about to talk to other white students and in other
cases, he told them they were going to talk to black students.
And when the white students thought they were going to talk to black students about affirmative
action, they set the chairs up further apart.
And, you know, I, I, I read that.
I was like, oh my gosh, you know, I can, I can, I can imagine easily, all too easily imagine
that happening.
And that is another example of, of what Claude steel calls stereotypes threat where you're
so afraid of doing the thing that, that your group is often accused of doing that you then
do the thing.
And, and so it's, I think it's really important what you're, what you're talking about.
And there's another, I think, aspect to that problem that you're talking about that, that
at least I've experienced and I'm wonder whether you all have two in different ways.
But as a, as a white woman, I don't know if for people listening who can't tell what
I look like, I have often been asked to give feedback to other women because their boss,
who's a man, is a man.
And so now I'm like, you know, I'm being, I'm, I'm, I'm being asked to do extra work because,
because these leaders are afraid to do their work.
And, and that doesn't feel like, I'll do it for the sake of the employee, but it's sort
of annoying.
But it's actually, oh, sorry.
No, but saying also it goes back to that hierarchy triangle that we're building, right?
We're not also making it safe for that manager to give back feedback.
Yeah, we think about that too.
Yeah.
You know, because like, why do they need an intermediary?
Yeah, well, they don't, but, but they feel like, you're right.
Well, they feel afraid, right?
Yeah.
How are we supposed to do great work when we're feeling afraid in all these crazy different
levels?
Like, whether we're right or not, we can't be in fear.
Yeah.
I guess, I mean, what I tell the other, not too long ago, I was talking to a group of CEOs
and, and, and who were mostly white men.
And one of them said, I'm not going to give feedback to some of my employees because I'll
get in trouble with HR.
And I, and my response was, first of all, who does HR report to you?
So you're not going to, you, you, you, you, to say you feel afraid is not right.
You feel uncomfortable.
And there's a world of difference to me in feeling afraid and feeling uncomfortable.
And as a leader, it's your job to embrace the discomfort and push on the only way out
of the room.
But maybe I'm not being sympathetic enough to, but you, or me, I think you are saying
perfectly.
A lot of people don't know the, the, the difference between fear and discomfort.
It feels insane to them, right?
Yeah.
So that's their personal development to go through the, however, but you know, but we're still
trying to build products and make services while all, yeah, this is, you know, yeah, yeah,
no, it's hard.
It's hard.
And also, if they identify as an issue, I feel that people feel that that issue is permanent.
They don't do the work to follow up saying, I'm going to find a way to solve this problem,
either my discomfort or if I can't find it, the, the way to talk to them directly find
another way, which I guess that's why people approach you to hand, the hand off that message
to someone else who is also a woman.
But there, it needs to be, there needs to be either is, is it systematic?
Is it the, is it formulaic?
Meaning like, if there's a template for giving feedback, maybe it's in stars or, or, or
maybe it's in thumbs ups or something like that, a way to find a way to like do it so that
there is either a guard rail and developing a system to make sure that the, the feedback
is given and doesn't go into a place where it could be problematic.
Or does it fall into a place where if there is how the person receives it, if there's
a way to like either challenge it or a structure into addressing some of the issues that are
being brought up, if going and giving feedback feels like it's dangerous for the person who's
in power, the person in power can also develop a way to figure out how to fix that problem.
Yes.
Yeah.
Can mom ask you a question or at least just finish off part of that story, which was every
director who, or senior manager who had worked with a variety of these employees, had given
me feedback that was counter to what was written in the HR system.
Yeah.
That kind of thing, right?
Yeah.
And, you know, in code words, like they're very efficient, but they can be polarizing, right?
Oh gosh.
Yeah.
All those kinds of things.
And then it's really hard as you all know, as, you know, as you sit in your marginalized groups
because you're trying to also protect people from that.
Yeah.
So you know how much of it is like rhetoric and how much of it is actual truth.
Yeah.
And those situations, I think the, the comp, well, there's a lot of aspects to it that are
complicated.
It's one is if you, if you sense that the real feedback that's not getting into the HR
system is not actually feedback, but it's bias, you know, to say this person is polarizing.
I mean, you know, often when someone says that, what they mean is this person doesn't look
like the others in the group.
And so it's uncomfortable, you know.
And that's not polarizing.
That's like the problem.
So is that, is that bias masquerading as feedback?
And if so, then you've got some feedback to give to the leader.
But if it is, if it's sort of good performance feedback that would help the person, then
you got to give the feedback to the leader, well, why didn't you tell the person like,
why didn't you write it in the, you know, and maybe there's a problem with the HR system,
but at the very least that leader should, should be talking, should be given the development
person, feedback to the person so that they can improve.
Yep, there you go.
That's the complexity of life.
Yes, yes it is.
Yes it is.
Well, it would be nice if, yeah, it would be nice if there's a third party like bringing
in, don't allow this conversation without a facilitator as well.
Someone who can evaluate the words either like, I think you bring up texio a lot that
be able to look at the way the words are structured and be kind of like in the middle between
the person receiving and giving the feedback to make sure that things are working the way
they should.
Yeah, I mean, I really, when I was writing radical respect, I hired a breeze Harper who's
a critical race theorist and who is sort of my bias buster.
And that was really helpful because I'm white, my editors white, like we missed some stuff
and and breeze rad and caught it immediately.
And that was really helpful.
So, so if folks can swing that, if they have budget for that, it's really, really helpful.
Yeah.
Well, thank you so much for joining us on the podcast.
And thank you so much for teaching me about mobbing.
I really, I've learned a ton from you about it.
Well, I really hope that we can live in a world where we see less of it and that we know
some of those behaviors and we can nip them in the bed earlier and have the conversations
that really help us do the work that we all want to do.
You know, we've done a lot of time at work.
We should be focused on the things that we want to achieve.
Yes, totally agree.
And if you would like to share a new word for us, please send that over to hello@justworktogether.com
and we would love to be able to feature that and share that knowledge with other people
listening to the show.
And if you have feedback for us, non-biased, hopefully, please use the podcast that you're
listening to the application to give us a rating or review because we would love to
see that, to see how we're doing in our performance plans.
Thanks so much.
Take care, baby.
We will.
The Radical Canter Podcast is based on the book Radical Canter, "Be a Kickass Boss Without
Losing Your Humanity" by Kim Scott.
Episodes are written and produced by Brandy Neal with script editing by me, Amy Sandler.
The show features Radical Canter co-founders Kim Scott and Jason Rosoff and is hosted by
me.
Still, Amy Sandler.
Nick Parisamy is our audio engineer.
The Radical Canter Podcast theme music was composed by Cliff Goldmacher.
Follow us on LinkedIn, Radical Canter the Company, and visit us at RadicalCanter.com.
(drumming)