For me, power is neither bad nor good. It's neutral. It's energy. It's generative. It's creative. We need power to get things done. We need power to motivate, inspire. We work with our power all the time. There's nothing wrong about power. My name's Katrina. And I'm Steve. And we are curious about how changing conversations can change organizations. Yeah. And together with our community of transformation nerds, we're exploring how to leverage conversations to make our workplaces more fit for humans, but also more fit for the future. We'll use our podcast series to do just that while being in conversation with business and thought leaders who have interesting perspectives on the topic. So without further ado, let's start the conversation. Today, we are joined by a guest where we're going to talk about a really interesting topic when it comes to conversations, especially at the workplace. And we're going to talk about power. So today's guest is Julie Diamond. She is an executive coach, international leadership consultant, and the founder of the company Diamond Leadership. She's also the author of Power, a User's Guide. Over the last 25 years, Julie has been at the forefront of creating transformational learning and leadership solutions across a range of sectors and disciplines. Her research, which is, of course, the most relevant thing to our conversation today, is her work with leaders that's focused on the problems of power and the ways that power is expressed and how it impacts culture, decision making and leadership ability. Welcome, Julie. Welcome, Julie. Thank you. It's lovely to be here with you today. We're pretty excited to explore this topic with you today and maybe navigating our conversation to define some different types of power, to figure out how we can notice those or use those powers differently in our conversations and what the effect of power dynamics can have on our organization. So let's see where we can notice. So let's see where we go as we push off into this conversation. So sounds great. I'd love to start by just asking for an operational definition from you in terms of two different types of power. Maybe I can push you off into that. All right. So first of all, I just want to start out by saying power is the most defined and the most researched concept in the most researched concept in the social sciences. And being asked to define power always sets me off into a spin because it's used differently in economics, differently in psychology, differently in leadership. So it really depends on purpose. But for the purpose of this conversation, the definition that I like, I really like that. I like the definition that I like to think about power is the ability to make an impact, to create a change in someone's state of mind or state of being through resources at their disposal. My definition is very similar to make an impact, to influence using different resources. So in that sense, you'd have to think of power as a resource like a currency. So there's different currencies, there's different types of power. So this leads us into the different types of power. And there's different types of power. And there's different types of power. And there's so many ways to cut up the power pie, right? People slice and dice it, this type of power, that type of power, very famously, the five bases of power. But for me, fundamentally, I see two different types of power. I see more formal, socially ratified or agreed upon power, you know, sort of the social status, positional power. And then I see, the less visible, not ratified, more subjective powers that we all carry with us that has to do with our influence, our character, attributes, that we've developed self-awareness, our ability to be impactful, to hold ourselves, to navigate challenging situations, informal power as well, degree of belonging. So, you know, sometimes I call these social powers, personal powers. You could call them sort of, I call them outsourced and insourced powers. So any power that is outsourced, meaning it derives its value from others, is typically what we value, but it also makes us more vulnerable and dependent because we're dependent on those, the other people's ratification or the norms and values of our organizations or society. The insourced powers are ones that we can develop, we can take with us. They seem to have less value, but they're in fact extremely consequential for our ability to act. That's really helpful to have. So social power being the power that we're given, perhaps by our titles and our ranks and sort of formally given, and personal power being then this stuff that's just kind of made. The people who are powerful, the people who are powerful, even though they don't have the rank and the title. Exactly. I can't help thinking, you know, very rarely do I come across a conversation around power in an organization, to be honest. It is as if we don't want to talk about it. It is as if, it's actually, we don't want to talk about it. You're absolutely right. Why is that? Such a great question. I'm so glad you asked that because it's such a taboo. Power is the culprit in so many bad things. Power is, you know, the cause of so much suffering. Poor use of power is the cause of so much suffering. And inside of organizations also, I think the word power is almost not even used in a neutral sense, but it's already assumed to be negative. People say, oh, that's, you know, use of power. And it's almost as if it means bad power. So for me, power is neither bad nor good. It's neutral. It's energy. It's generative. It's creative. We need power to get things done. We need power to motivate, inspire. We work with our power all the time. There's nothing wrong about power. But we do have to acknowledge it's a terrible taboo. And I deliberately use the word power. And I have been counseled so many times to use the word influence or to use the word strength or to not use the word power. But I want to raise the conversation. Speaking of conversations, I want us to start talking about it because it's an undiscussable. It's something that we're afraid of. We're afraid we're going to lose power if we name it. Maybe we're afraid we're going to be accused of having too much power. We think of power as politicking and backstabbing and all these bad things. But really, we need to become just better power users. Not have it, not deny it, but just get good at it. So we did some research for Gary Hamel and Sandini's book on humanocracy, where we looked at a lot of organizations that have a human-centric management model, i.e. not a bureaucracy. And one of the things that we thought about was that when you read these cases, one thing that kind of stood out was that those organizations, one thing they had in common was that their coming together or their conversations were different. They felt like this less hierarchy was felt in the way they gathered in the conversations. So could you say something about how does power play into conversations when it's really generative and positive? So power does have a dampening effect on conversation. This is really true. Power tends to be a lot of people that power. Power tends to create less psychological safety. But we have to remember here that power is not just positional. So a flat organization or a flat-ter organization also has power dynamics. In fact, they're sometimes more hidden. And in that case, they're more dangerous. And they have consequences that are less visible to us, but are just as decisive. And so in the absence of titles, in the absence of positions, power will migrate into things like insider, insider, insider, outsider dynamics, social identity, gender, seniority, things like that, expertise, dominant personalities. And we know that in an unfacilitated meeting, dominant personalities will take over. This has been well documented. So I agree that we need to have better conversations. And I agree that power dampens the ability for people to feel safe to speak up. There's a social cost to speaking up. But I'm pausing because I want to say this right. So when we flatten organizations, we do a disservice if we don't keep our eyes on power. I write somewhere that the fewer layers of management, actually the more management training we need. Because everybody's now responsible for making that atmosphere a safe, open, open, generative, and creative atmosphere. And it's very easy for people to not see their power, especially those invisible powers. And that's why I make that distinction. I don't see that I'm more comfortable in this room. I know more people. I don't see that I have more seniority. I just feel comfortable. It's just me. And I don't see how easy it is for me to speak up. I don't see that there's, you know, the men speak up and the women always don't speak. I don't see that because this is just normal and natural. So we have to be even more vigilant there. And I think that in our desire to create more human-centric organizations, I would like us to become actually more power intelligent around that. Because one more thing I want to say here, a lot of times we conflate informal with egalitarian. But if we really track, if you really track speaking time, interruptions, engagement, contributions, you will see that it's unevenly distributed. And that those uneven distribution very often tracks towards rank and power. Whether it's, you know, social identity, gender, race, whatever, or whether it's seniority, whether it's degree of belonging. So what do you do if you have power, both powers potentially, and you have a longing for giving away that power to other people? And you might not have the consciousness that it takes to even see it a little bit like you're privileged and the privileged tend to be blind, right, to that privilege. I guess it's a little bit the same with power, that you don't see you have it. So how do you detox me? That's absolutely right. I don't want to detox you. I don't want to detox anybody. I don't like this idea of giving up power because I'm old enough to have been through several social experiments in collectives, consensus, communes, you know, and it's never worked so far. It's very hard to give up power. So I don't want to detox anybody and I don't want anyone to give up their power. You have power in an organization. You have more seniority. You have more expertise. You have a title. You can't not have it. People will see it anyway, even if you sort of pretend to be equal. I think it's not about making space. For me, it starts with curiosity. Be curious. So if you lead with curiosity, you will be more interested in hearing from others. So rather than just give up your power, which can also become very patronizing, right? So you're empowering others to speak and it doesn't really feel right. You lead with curiosity. And the other thing, which is very motivating, is to lead with fear. Curiosity and fear. Why fear? If you have a lot of power, you should be constantly a little bit afraid that you're not hearing the truth or the full truth or people are rounding off the edges of their message or they're making you feel good or they're wanting to be on your good side or they're hesitant. And you should be both curious and afraid that you might not be getting the full picture, all the data points you need to make great decisions. You're not getting people's voices. We know that change happens from the margins. In society, change is always coming from the margins. Well, the same thing is true in an inside organization. The lesser known voices are carrying information that rarely gets brought into the conversation. So the motivation is 50% curiosity. What are people thinking? And then 50% fear, like, uh-oh, we may not hear from them unless I really invite, unless I really make it clear that it's important and I remove any penalties for speaking up. It makes me think of a great advice that I was given by actually Roger Martin, whom you probably know. We did a lot of work with him on conversations. I was thinking of the same one. And he boiled this down to a sentence that he literally asked us to remember, and even mimic in the beginning to just get going. And the sentence is that when you, of course, you need to make your argument. But when you make an argument or an advocacy, as he calls it, you always twin it with curiosity or, you know, an inquiry. So you say, I have a point worth listening to, but I might be missing something. Best sentence. Yeah. He literally said, whenever you make an argument, which you do all the time, by the way, approximately 90% of the time you open your mouth, you make an argument. Whenever you do it, make a rule out of twinning it with an inquiry because there's always something you don't see. And that vulnerable curiosity into, like, tell me what is it that I might not see. And I think it's a, maybe that points to your curiosity and even fear, maybe. Absolutely. I like that sentence. I might be missing something. What am I not seeing? There's a few more points I would add to that. First of all, the research shows that groups, if you value innovation, ideas, creativity, so groups will always default to the person who speaks first, the more dominant individual, or the one who speaks the most. So, or with a greater seniority. So, I might be missing something. I might be missing something. I'm going to make an argument. If you cannot be the first to lead off, you know, it doesn't mean that you don't come in with your argument, but leave space, leave room. It doesn't mean you're giving up power. It just means that you realize that people will follow your lead. And that's just human nature. They will defer. And so, Roger Martin, to his point about advocating versus inquiry or curiosity, that's true across all human relationships. You sort of add power, drop little power in that test tube, and it becomes really even a greater, a greater thing. So, people will then not just argue, they'll feel more confident, they'll feel more comfortable. It's that water they're swimming in that they don't really see. People with less rank will be more hesitant. They'll think, well, can I really have a different opinion? Can I really, should I, no one's saying what I'm thinking. Maybe, maybe it's ridiculous, right? So, that self-consciousness comes with low rank. It's natural. So, yes, what am I missing? I need to hear from other people. And also, maybe don't lead off. Don't start the conversation so that there's space. So, I think the really interesting or the surprising part to me is this thing about when you have more formal power, you've got a little bit more to look out for in terms of how misinformed you might be because of that power. And I think that's really interesting. So, I like that question because when I talk about power, a lot of people will put the onus on the person in the high rank as they have to do something. And obviously, they do. But it's a double-sided coin. With low rank, you too have a responsibility to contribute. So, there's a few things here. One is that if you think to yourself, it's my job to speak. You know, I'm being paid to have an opinion. This isn't a charity, right? No one's paying me to be here because it's a charity. Actually, I was, I'm paid for my opinion. I'm paid for my intelligence. It's my moral responsibility to speak up. When I work with, when I coach people, a lot of times, you know, maybe they're conflict avoidant. They don't want to have a hard conversation or they feel like, well, you know, clearly they're already going in a direction. Who am I to speak up? And I always say it's your job. So, I always, I make that the first thing. It sounds obvious and it sounds kind of silly, but it is your job to speak up whether or not you have the rank or the authority. And the second part of that is to think that you're offering something. You have something to give. That because people in power aren't getting the full information, because they're overestimating their own ideas and underestimating that there's information they may be missing, your job is to help them. Your job is to use whatever power. And remember, again, here, everyone has a little bit of power. Back to our definition, you may not have the positional authority, but you've got personal power, you've got expertise, you've got insight. Low rank has its own power, too. There's the power of rookie rank, I call it, because you see things others don't, right? You're new. You're like, why is everybody doing it this way? Like, what's wrong with people here? So, there is always power, even if it's a tiny little piece. This gets me thinking about, you know, because you say speaking up, and that really resonates as well. I think that's definitely something to remember as we all go into any conversation. Also, if you're not leading it or the leader, it gets me thinking about as an introverted person, where perhaps speaking up in a meeting or in a conversation, maybe that's not best suited for everybody's style. So, it got me thinking, what to do then? Do you have any ideas around that? So, there I go back to the high power role. And I think we've got to acknowledge, so difference is really important. So, when you talk about introversion, extroversion, we're sort of veering into the conversation around difference and diversity, that extroverts will have an easier time, people who are more socially bold, people who are more embedded, whether that's through relationship or seniority, or being part of the in-group, whatever that is, it's going to be more comfortable for them. So, I think that we really need to acknowledge that we're all starting in different places, and some people like to speak up, others don't, and that if you're really, if you really want that conversation to happen, and you're motivated by curiosity and fear, then speaking is just one way to contribute, right? There's other ways to do it, too. You could have everybody be quiet for a moment, write down their thoughts, put their thoughts on a piece of paper, read them out. I mean, there's just so many creative ways to do this that also engage different parts of the brain. So, it's not just like you're being nice to people who are introverts, you're also going to get like a whole different input into the conversation than just using the same old talk. I was just thinking when you mentioned that one of the themes that we've been, you know, thinking a lot about and actually working with is this question about what invitation am I making as a human to conversation? And all of us are making some invitations and also there are areas where we're not inviting for a conversation. And for me, at least, that question led me to think about, you know, where am I not making an invitation? And I was thinking maybe you could shed some light on power in that context because I could imagine that I would sometimes even use my natural powers as a kind of, almost like an armor that kind of, you know, sheds me from where I don't want to go. And even the way I'm thinking about it. And even the way I carry myself physically, walk through an office space, my expressions, says a lot about the level of invitation. And if I'm not conscious around my powers, which I think very few people are, how does that play into my invitation? Could you say something about that? That's a deep question because you mentioned something about use your power to shield yourself. And I think that this is one of the fundamental in my work and in my methodology with coaching people around their use of power. I focus a lot on using power in a protective, defensive way. So when we're feeling, there's a real, there's a real, there's a lot of research that supports this, that feeling weak in some way, fearful, anxious, triggered, undervalued in some way, you know, low performance feelings, whatever that might be. Results coupled with a high power role will frequently result in a poor use of power because we then use our power in a protective and defensive way. So if we're having, you know, we can use our power, we're having a bad day, we don't want people to talk to us, we can walk through the office, sending out signals of like, just stay away, like, don't bug me. You know, I, or we can, you know, so many ways we carry ourselves are nonverbal signals. I mean, just being on a device right now. I mean, this is like a major issue. You're sitting in a meeting, and the boss picks up their phone. It's just terrible signal of like, I'm just so checked out. I don't care what's going on. So we, I think, so to answer that question, there's so many things to say about it. So first of all, I think we need to be mindful of our, of our emotional states. I think that that's, that's really important for everybody, obviously. But our emotional states really very much begin the invitation or not, right? So are we open? Are we ready? Do we feel open enough and good enough? And take it seriously. Like, if you're not feeling good, you can't fake it. You need to take care of whatever else is happening. And that we all, we all have that right to not be having a good day. But in a position of power, we should, we have the responsibility also to not let that bad day sort of pollute our atmospheres. So just managing yourself, I think, is number one. I think the thing about invitation, what makes a good invitation is understanding the ask. If I'm, if I want feedback, if I want someone to give me true feedback or speak up or give me some information, I want to hear from them, I need to understand what I'm asking. It's not enough to just say, you know, my door's open, or what do you think? We have to understand, you know, what's the social cost on the other side? Like, what am I, what is the discomfort? I'm, I'm creating in the other person. And what can I do to mitigate that? What can I do to make it easier for the person? So a really classic example to use feedback is that if you ask someone for feedback, they give you feedback, then you start to ask them about it or engage with them about it. You're just sending a message there that like, wow, this is too much work for me. I'm not going to do this again. The next time this person asks me for feedback, I'm going to say, yeah, that's great. Because it's a hard enough to give feedback up. It's hard enough to, or just even to a friend, it's just hard enough to do that. So if you add an additional burden of like questioning the person about it, right? Marshall Goldsmith famously says, say, thank you. Like the rest belongs to you, not to them. So I think that's, you know, notice your emotional states. And then also really be mindful of the discomfort that you're, creating in the other person. And see what you can do to make it easier for them to speak up. It gets me thinking about difficult conversations. And when, when perhaps they're difficult on both ends for different reasons, you know, because because of potentially power difference. And we have quite a specific example that I think, Steve, it could be great for you to give some context about it's it's on a, on a diversity inclusion agenda. I think talking about this example might help lay out very concretely, how you can work with, with this and power. Yeah, we, we, we have the challenge, like most other organizations to drive that specific agenda. And, and we were not, we were feeling that we were not progressing. And, and actually, the, the, what we end up sensing or concluding, was that we were, was that we were simply not in conversation. It just felt so difficult to have that conversation for the men and the women for different reasons. But the effect was that the conversation was, was not happening. And everybody was holding back a little bit, afraid of being too much or too something. So, so there was this almost a void of that conversation. And we, we, we literally had to take a step back and facilitate that we could actually talk about it and create a language and spend time on, you know, taking the stigmas out of it and, and creating a space where you could also say the things that you were afraid people would kind of look at and say, that's wrong. You can't say that. You can't think that. And to be specific, it's also because as in most companies, it is because there's a lot more men on the, the upper level of the organization. And what, not feeling like as the senior men, you could actually be honest in the conversations that you're having. So that's, that's, I think a really interesting example of where, yes, there's power, but it, it is stopping you from being able to have an honest conversation. on something that really matters. So I'm really curious to kind of pull apart this example a little bit together with you, Judy. And just maybe even just some high level thoughts that come to mind. First of all, it's great that you're tackling this. It's hard and everybody is, you know, we all need to tackle it and it's not easy. And to just sort of be so transparent around the difficulty is refreshing to hear. I, you know, it's interesting. From the outside, it's very easy to sort of judge the senior levels of leadership, the men at the top and say, they don't want to have this conversation because they don't want to lose something or they have a vested interest in maintaining their, their power. And it could be true. We don't know. But I think you also said something about people are afraid. They're afraid to speak. And I think here's where we need to look at that interplay between low power feelings and high power role. This is like such a core of my work. Low power feelings and a high power role is pretty much the definition of power problems. Right? So why do these men in the highest positions of leadership are afraid? They should like logically, they shouldn't be afraid. They have all the power, but they're afraid. We're humans. We're afraid. We're afraid. We're afraid to speak up. We're afraid we'll be judged. We're humans too. We want to be liked. We're afraid people will yell at us. Whatever those fears are. Maybe we're afraid we'll lose some status. Maybe we're nervous financially. Maybe we're nervous that we're going to be, there's a loss. There's a perceived loss. And I feel like we need to make space for the real fears. It's not to say that we're not going to make change. It's not to say that we're not going to create and drive more equitable organizations. But if we just over, if we just equate power with privilege and, and authority, and we miss the fears, and the inner low rank feelings in there, we're going to not get where we need to get to. We need to allow that to be the case for everybody in the conversation. For me, it's helpful with that distinction that you can actually be in a situation where you have a low power feeling, even though you have a high power position. That was exactly where we, where we were. And it kind of totally blocked for a conversation. Right, right. But if you look at the worst power behaviors on the planet, Steak, right? If you look at like, you know, terrible politicians, terrible, terrible leaders, terrible bosses who are like, you know, aggressive towards their opponents. I mean, that's fear driven. That's not confidence driven, right? We look at the bluster. And we look at bullies. And we just think that they're dominant, but we don't see how much that's driven by inner anxiety, by low rank feelings, by fears. And I think that that really unlocks the power equation that allows us to start to work with it, which is difficult. I want to acknowledge it's really difficult if you're in a low rank position socially, if you're a member of a minor, minoritized group or racialized group, and we're talking about the low power feelings of people in high power roles. That's annoying. That's also, that's infuriating. So I'm not saying that we should give them a pass. I'm not saying that that means that we don't make change or challenge them, but that we start with humans where humans are at in order to make change. I think it's cool, this thing, like you mentioned words that I really don't like. I don't like the word power. I don't like the word fear. I'd rather not, I sense like almost a physical kind of, can we talk about something else? But it made me think of this thing about undiscussables. So, so in every organization I work with it, I can, I can actually identify things that it's, it's impossible to talk about this. So we were at a meeting actually yesterday with a client and the CEO there said that, you know, they had had, was it a half day set aside to talk about, I think it was five or 10? I think it was 10. Was it 10 undiscussables? So in this sense, it could be gender, it could be one. In their case, it was also, are we actually in a market that is unattractive? Like literally, are we, you know, should we, you know, should we, should we get out of here? Also, do we have anything that competition doesn't have better? So really, you could say existential problems in this case that were to some extent undiscussables because by just mentioning him, you're almost saying, you know, it, it, you, you, you get defensive. It is as if you didn't drink the Kool-Aid. You're not on our side. So could you say something about, because I think it's a cool theme, this thing about what are our undiscussables? What are the conversations we can't have? So almost all undiscussables in organizations and every organization has undiscussables. Every marriage has undiscussables. Every friendship has undiscussables. Every group has undiscussables. They almost always come down to power in the sense that if I bring this up, if I talk about this, will I lose something, you know, will I be under threat? Will I lose something? Will I lose my standing, my status? And so it, it, it's not just that people shy away from hard conversations, but they do so in very predictable ways. Um, and due to often power difference, it's much easier to be in a high power role and bring up an undiscussable than it is in a lower power role. But, um, you said something that I want to go back to, um, I think, um, so the question is, how do we, how do we have these conversations? What causes undiscussables? How do we have them? And I think that, I think there's, there's a few things that come to mind. One is that all systems need to protect themselves. Human systems, organisms, we all have an identity we need to protect. We all have, you know, we're defensive for a reason. We're protecting ourselves. And I think that acknowledging that goes a long way. So just throwing out a bunch of undiscussables is going to create a defensive reaction, right? So I'm a big fan of framing and elevating conversations and giving people notice and, and like preparation and time to get ready. So for example, if I want to, if I'm the CEO and I want to have a conversation about some really big undiscussables, the first thing I'd do is I'd say to everybody, I want to do this. And I recognize this is going to be really hard and give everybody the sense of like, it's okay to feel what you're going to feel. This is going to be hard for us. The second thing is everybody's going to see different undiscussables. So I would like to, everybody to write down their top three undiscussables, right? I don't want to just, I don't want to, if I say what the undiscussables are in a way I'm creating more undiscussables, right? So, um, the second thing is, is then I would, I would give people preparation. I would say, we're going to tackle one at a time. It's going to happen. Like, think about it. Here's some questions to think about. Here's some ways to get going. Sort of marinate, marinate the meat before you put it on the grill, tenderize it, get people ready. It's really just acknowledging all that social cost, the difficulty, the defensiveness already goes a long way towards opening people up. They're not going to come in feeling like, um, you know, I'm not ready to open my mouth or, you know, um, I'd be curious to sort of like looping back to the example we started with as well, based on what you just said about being prepared. I actually kind of think it's funny as well with the marinating before you put on the grill of that hard conversation. But Steve, in terms of that D&I process, because that, that was going on for like six, seven months. And we did hear about stories where some resolution was found, although it's not solved, but you know, there was, you were able to have some conversations. So what specifically worked for you to be able to do that? I think exactly as you pointed to the, the marinate did a lot, just looking at and sharing research and insights and interviewing insightful people on the matter, uh, talking to, in this case, uh, women in implement that, you know, maybe felt, uh, not in a powerful position, but was suddenly asked to put words in the way. Words to anonymously put words to how this could play out. Because suddenly we had something on the table that we just had to look at and said, this is, whether we agree or not, this is the reality for some people. And suddenly we got a common ground and we got, and we got, and by having a common ground, we got on the same side of the table. So suddenly we were problem solving on the back of something where we didn't start on different sides of the table. And for me, it just felt that I suddenly, and I was probably one of those who felt, who had a powerful position, but, but a low power feeling in the subject. I didn't feel qualified. I even felt that I'm not, I wasn't doing a good job. I felt I was biased, all kinds of, of things going on in me that led me to hold, to hold back. And I think, so I was also part of not having the conversation. And suddenly we were, it was actually that marinade that did it. I don't know if it makes sense. Actually, the marinade in question here is also data. And I really am a big fan of data because I feel like that it depersonalizes things. It says like, look, as you said, we're, we're, we're problem solving. We go from, it's not just individuals being bad or good. It's really data and there's patterns. And so I just really, I'm a big, I have a really good friend who does diversity, equity inclusion consulting, um, who talks about pattern awareness. Like we need to look at the patterns. We need to look at the data. Um, Shaquille Chaudhary. I just want to call him out since I'm using his, his words here, pattern awareness. And also that there's things get baked in like the, like there's a design that sets up inequity. It's not just humans acting. It's, there's also designs that we've created that we're unconscious of and that predict certain inequitable outcomes. Um, I'm going to call out another colleague of mine, Minil Bopaya, um, who's written a book on equity. And she talks a lot about how we, these designs will produce effects. And that if we're not really careful of why are there no women at the top, right? Well, how do promotions get, what is the design for promotions? Does it depend on networks? Does it depend on the availability of being on projects that maybe creep into time that would be difficult for a caregiver? Does it depend on, you know, like, track it backwards and how did we design for that? And, and so this is all sort of the data patterns design bucket, which really depersonalizes the conversation a bit. It's like, well, I'm, it's not like I'm just a bad person or I'm doing something wrong. I'm also a product of the system that was set up without thinking about what outputs it would spit out. So as we kind of near perhaps more the end of our conversation, I would, I'd like to just get mega concrete for a second. Um, if somebody is listening and then they're going to go into a meeting or they're going to go into the office as the first thing, if, if I do have high formal power, the one thing I need to remember as I'm walking into the next thing, what would that be? It's that you're not getting the information you need and you need to be curious and fearful. You need to, you need to remember to lead with curiosity and the fear and notice that you will, you will direct the conversation in ways that you're not aware unless you say, what am I missing? And unless you don't speak first or you sort of give a little bit more space. And if I'm walking in with, uh, with not the formal power, what is the one thing that I should remember as I walk in? It's your job to speak up. The organization needs you. It's your obligation to say what you see that others may not be seeing. Fantastic. Thank you so much. And as we, we close off all of our conversations in the same way, and we do that by asking, what is the one thing that we each will take into the next? So, um, I think for me, the thing, one of the things that I'll take away is that even flat organizations have power struggles and troubles. And so I'll be taking that, that forward with me as a surprising fact. I like, um, I like, um, I like, um, I like, um, a couple of things. One is this thing about how do I lead with curiosity? I think that's a beautiful question. It, it made me, it made me think and reflect and, and, but on the concrete level, I'm down to what you just said. Uh, don't start the conversation. Like don't, don't start the conversation. Don't speak up first. It's a beautiful hack, uh, for me. So I think I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll experiment with that one. Thank you, Julia. What about you, Judy? I think I'm staying with the story of trying to have the conversation and how hard it was and just being reminded that we're all humans and trying really hard and that how much, how much, how much are, how much fear is present in, in trying to get where we want to get to. And just being compassionate around that. Thank you so much for your time and talking to us. It's a pleasure. It's been a lovely conversation. Thank you both so much. Thank you. If you're interested to follow up on any of the references in this episode, follow the link in the episode description. Thanks for listening. Remember, you're never not in conversation. So stay curious out there. See you next time. Bye.