‍0:00:02.6 Producer: Welcome back Culture by Design listeners. It's Freddy, one of the producers of the podcast. And today's episode is part two in our five-part series on what is driving demand for psychological safety today. This episode focuses on exclusion and social injustice. It's a delicate conversation, so I'll let Tim and Junior take it from here. But you can find important links to this episode in the show notes at leaderfactor.com/podcast. Thanks again for listening and thank you for your reviews. Enjoy today's episode of the Culture by Design podcast.

0:00:46.0 Junior: Welcome back everyone to Culture by Design. I'm back with Dr. Tim Clark and today we'll be discussing why exclusion and social injustice have created demand for psychological safety. Tim, how are you doing?

‍

0:00:56.1 Tim: Doing well Junior. Good to be with you. I really look forward to this conversation.

‍

0:01:01.0 Junior: Me too. I've been looking forward to this one. Of the drivers of demand for psychological safety, this is close to, if not at the top of the list. It's a conversation that's delicate. It's a sensitive issue. And our hope today is to do it justice, to share what we believe to be true and a few observations through our experience working with some of the world's most prominent organizations. We deal with this constantly. It's what we do and we're excited to share with you today.

‍

0:01:30.2 Tim: Yeah, that's true Junior. And I do want to underscore the point that you just made. As we have this conversation today, we do so with an understanding that it's delicate, that it's sensitive and we want to acknowledge that and we want to approach it with the, I guess the respect and the dignity that it deserves. So here we go.

‍

0:01:53.5 Junior: So what is social injustice?

‍

0:01:55.7 Junior: Tim, that might be a term that we want to define at the get go here to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. How would you define social injustice?

‍

0:02:04.7 Tim: Well, I think the very basic definition of social injustice is when humans don't treat other humans the way they should be treated. That's the most basic definition. Now there are all kinds of manifestations of social injustice, of course, but what is the basic definition? I think that's what it is.

‍

0:02:29.4 Junior: I think that's helpful and I think it's actionable. So I appreciate you laying it out that way. The way that we'd like to start today's episode is by asking all of us, ourselves included, more questions that lie at the heart of the topic. And I'd ask anyone listening to try and answer these questions as I read them. And the answers will shed light on where we might need to spend some more time as individuals and as organizations. First question, do you truly believe that all humans are created equal? And do you accept others and welcome them into your society simply because they possess flesh and blood, even if their values differ from your own?

‍

0:03:07.7 Junior: Question two, without bias or discrimination, do you encourage others to learn and grow? And do you support them in that process, even when they lack confidence or make mistakes? Question three, do you grant others maximum autonomy to contribute in their own way as they demonstrate their ability to deliver results? And finally, do you consistently invite others to challenge the status quo in order to make things better? And are you personally prepared to be wrong based on the humility and learning mindset that you've developed? So those are the four questions. They are searching questions, and they can be asked individually and, as I mentioned, institutionally. And the answers to those questions, the true answers, the honest answers are probably correlated with how we behave as individuals and institutions. And so those four questions, we will link or we will put in the show notes so that you can reflect on them after we get through this episode. And you can share them as well. They're four questions that are very, very important to ask and to answer.

‍

0:04:16.9 Tim: Maybe add a comment here. As you reflect on those questions, and Junior, you're right, they're penetrating questions, they're poignant questions. You may nod your head and say, yes, I agree. Well, what does that mean? Oftentimes, there's a gap between the professed values that an individual or an institution may have and the de facto values. There's a gap. And for all of us, there's probably some gap because we are fallible. We are flawed. But how big is that gap? That's really the question, I guess, that we're asking. And so if you ask these questions of yourself, you may want to reflect on that. Is there a gap between my professed and my de facto values? At some point, if the gap is too big, then you lose credibility. And also at an individual level, if the gap is too big, then you will suffer internally from dissonance, from incongruity within your own heart and mind. And institutionally, what does that lead to? It leads to cynicism. It leads to a lack of trust. It leads to a jaded experience. So I just want to point that out because these questions that you just asked, Junior, are, as you said, these are very searching questions that we need to pause and take time to reflect on.

‍

0:06:02.2 Junior: Inside those questions, we've made a few assumptions. And one of the assumptions is that humans have certain inalienable rights by virtue of their membership in the human family. We've assumed that humans are autonomous creatures, that we have sovereignty at the individual level. We have agency. We can make choices. Part of this enters some complicated philosophical territory, but I think that it's helpful to set the stage. And what do we mean by inalienable? We mean a right that can't be restrained or repealed by human law. What do we owe each other? The different people believe different things about this. Locke said life, liberty, and property. Rawls said thought, liberty of conscience. He talked about political liberty, speech press assembly, association. And so we're not going to go through a comprehensive list of what everyone has thought we owe each other. But what do we at Leader Factor believe we owe each other? At the most basic level, respect. And an acknowledgement that inclusion hinges on humanity, not human characteristics. And that's the fundamental distinction. And the level at which we will have the conversation today. Humanity versus human characteristics. And the fact that the right to inclusion is not earned, it's owed.

‍

0:07:24.8 Tim: Yeah. So what that means, Junior, just to go back, the right to inclusion is not earned, it's owed. In other words, it's an entitlement. And we use that word very deliberately in this context. So we want to point that out. This is not something that you earn. Therefore, by extension, you can say that there are no justifiable grounds for exclusion, save one only, and that is the threat of harm. That's it. But if you look at your fellow brothers and sisters, each one of us is a bundle of demographics and psychographics and cultural characteristics. There's no way to say that there are grounds for exclusion based on whatever your demographics or your psychographics or your cultural characteristics are. That is illegitimate. We'll talk a little bit more about that, but we want to set the stage for inclusion. What is inclusion based on? It's based on being a member of the human family. When we go beyond that and we use different criteria in any other way, we get into trouble and the patterns of exclusion start to show themselves. We develop strains of elitism and we make claims of superiority that are completely false and illegitimate.

‍

0:09:00.7 Tim: We'll talk a little bit more about that as we go.

‍

0:09:03.3 Junior: So the crux of the issue here, just talking about setup, is that humans have certain rights, certain entitlements, but not all individuals and organizations behave in accordance with those rights and entitlements. And that dissonance creates the issue that we're looking at, which is exclusion and social injustice. Not all organizations or people use humanity as their criteria for inclusion. They use human characteristics and the results speak for themselves.

‍

0:09:35.9 Tim: Junior, let me share a quote, a statement from Maya Angelou that I love. It kind of makes what you just said an understatement. So we don't always, yeah, that's an understatement. This is what Maya Angelou once said. She said, throughout our nervous history, we have constructed pyramidic towers of evil. Oft times in the name of good, our greed, fear and lasciviousness have enabled us to murder our poets, who are ourselves, to castigate our priests, who are ourselves. The list of our subversions of the good stretch from before recorded history to this moment. And so that's why we have to ask ourselves as we look through the annals of history, are we technologically advanced and still sociologically primitive? There's a lot of evidence that would suggest that we have made cumulative gains technologically, but maybe not sociologically. And that's the dilemma that we face because throughout history, we act like free electrons. We bump up against each other. Sometimes we connect, sometimes we contend. And so this is the question that we need to ask. I'll bring in one more statement that I love. The Harlem Renaissance poet Langston Hughes, he talked about the fact that sometimes we are stinking, low down, mean to each other.

‍

0:11:13.3 Tim: And that's been a pattern. And so that's the setup for this discussion today. So Junior, I'm just saying what you said may be a gross understatement of what's happened through history.

‍

0:11:26.3 Junior: I think you're right. If we're open and honest and we look through the history books, there are few exceptions to that rule of exclusion. And that Maya Angelou quote, that packs a punch. It does. I want to make sure that that makes it into the show notes. That's something that each of us needs to read again. I know I'm going to go read that again.

‍

0:11:45.6 Tim: Let me add a couple more. Do it. Just say if that's okay. The German political philosopher Hannah Arendt, she said, I love this one, the world lies between people. And this in between is today the object of the greatest concern and the most obvious upheaval in almost all of the countries of the globe. And then I'll just add one. So that's the macro perspective, right, that Hannah Arendt gives us. And then here's a related thought from Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Very simple statement. He said, we are healed by relation, not isolation. And so the tee up for this discussion, Junior, is so important. I'll add one last statement. This is what I wrote in the four stages of psychological safety. As humans, we look for loyalties to attach to. Out of our attachments emerge our differences. Out of our differences emerge our divisions. Out of our divisions emerge our classes, ranks, and stations. And it is out of those spaces between us that the comparisons begin. The empathy flees, the fear and envy emerge. The conflicts arise, the antagonisms gestate, the destructive instincts and impulses for abuse and cruelty arise. In the spirit of our bigotry, we invent dogmas to justify the ways we torment each other.

‍

0:13:34.5 Tim: So the history, it's not a good one, is it, Junior? It's a chronicle of conquest and bigotry and servitude. I think we have to acknowledge that going in.

‍

0:13:47.3 Junior: I think part of that acknowledgement is acknowledgement that it's difficult and that it's complicated. Otherwise we would have solved it already. If you look at the technological problems that we've solved over thousands of years, it's astounding. Yet we have not been able to crack the code. And so when we're talking about demand for psychological safety as it relates to exclusion and social injustice, we're talking about a very complicated issue. We have not solved this over thousands of years. And some would say, well, there's been real no concerted effort because those who could make change perhaps bask in some of the consequences of that inequality and social injustice in a favorable way at the top of some of those pyramids that Maya Angelou mentioned. And the in-between that Arend talks about, it includes a whole host of issues that we're talking about today that we are trying to work through. There are a multitude of issues that as a species we're trying to work through. And we're not here to take a policy stance, but some of the issues, I mean, there are so many voting rights, ecology and environment, healthcare, the refugee crisis. And there's not just one, there are refugees all over the globe.

‍

0:15:15.3 Junior: How many hundreds of millions at this point are displaced?

‍

0:15:19.0 Tim: They say over a hundred million are forcibly displaced at the moment. More than, it's unbelievable.

‍

0:15:25.6 Junior: Racial injustice, income gaps, gun violence, LGBTQ rights, hunger and food insecurity, worker equality, body autonomy, body coverings. You see these things pop up every single day. And many of these issues come from the same place where we're not treating humans as humans should be treated. And that's why I love the simplicity of your definition at the beginning is if we solved that problem, what else would be solved? That's about as high upstream as you can go. That's the crux of the issue. So if you were to assume that every human treated other humans as they should be treated, and we are making some assumptions about how they should be treated, a lot of these things would not be problems anymore. But there is nuance and there is complexity and we acknowledge that. But we've been trying to solve for this for hundreds of years. If you look historically, we could point to just a few women's suffrage, civil rights, apartheid. And now there are movements trying to solve some of these things.

‍

0:16:33.4 Junior: You have BLM, Me Too, indigenous land rights, women's rights to drive in Saudi Arabia. I mean, it's ongoing every year, every day. There's more work that people are trying to do in these areas to solve what is this fundamental problem. And it seems to me that the tolerance, at least over time, has decreased. If you look at the tolerance scale from thousands of years ago, that's gone down. And there have been events and subsequent movements in recent years that have drawn more and more attention to the topic of social injustice. And I think as a human race, we want and demand fair treatment now more than ever. I don't know if we want it more than ever, but we certainly demand it more than ever. And we're looking at things like psychological safety as table stakes and as requirements. So I think that if you look historically, that is something that's changed that's important to acknowledge.

‍

0:17:33.0 Tim: Junior, I think that let's go back to the basic definition of social injustice. When humans don't treat other humans the way they should be treated, why is that? The universal condition of the human family is insecurity. And out of the insecurity come response patterns that are not good. They're destructive. And often what we do is people make claims of superiority one over another. Let me share a statement from John Adams, the second president of the United States that is very compelling. He said, I believe there is no one principle which predominates in human nature so much in every stage of life from the cradle to the grave in males and females, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, high and low has this passion for superiority, superiority.

‍

0:18:31.7 Junior: I've never heard that quote.

‍

0:18:33.1 Tim: It's amazing. And so false claims of superiority create division. False claims of superiority create exclusionary behavior, bias and prejudice. And we've been, this gets in the way. And so if we go back to one of the concepts that John Rawls, the philosopher helped us understand is that the human characteristics that define us, which are very important, your demographics and your psychographics. But he says that when it comes to having an adjust society, that those differences become arbitrary distinctions. It's not that they're not important anymore. They're important. They are sources of your identity. They are in many cases sacred to you. You cherish those, but they're no more important than someone else's human characteristics. Therefore they become arbitrary distinctions as we come together and live in societies and in social collectives and in organizations and in families, they become arbitrary distinctions. And so if you look around, you'll see that we govern ourselves. We have governed our societies based on, we've run our societies based on what I would call unclean theories, intellectually unclean theories, where we justify junk theories of superiority. We have to get rid of those. We are members of the same human family.

‍

0:20:21.2 Tim: That's what matters. We elevate humanity as the highest loyalty. We subordinate all other characteristics, similarities or differences. We're not saying they're not important. They are important, but they're not more important than humanity. Right.

‍

0:20:42.5 Junior: To put a little bit more color to humans versus human characteristics and this idea of superiority, I pulled up a list of some of the factors that we use. And this is from a webinar that we did. We can link to that in the show notes. But here are a number of factors that I think all of us have probably used at some point in some way to feel superior or inferior to others. Let me read some of these. I think it's helpful. Social, physical, intellectual, ethnic.

‍

0:21:15.4 Junior: And as I read these, think about it, right? I'm socially superior. I'm physically superior. I'm smarter. I have superior ethnicity, gender, ideology, political, racial, moral, ancestral, religious, educational, performance, geographic, economic, generational, occupational, associational, tribal, age, familial. So that's a lot of variables. We use each one of those as the basis for our judgment. I'm older, therefore. I ascribe to this religion, therefore this person is this race, therefore I associate with this person, therefore I'm from this generation and because of that, this. So we use these all the time. And as you mentioned, they are important distinctions. There are meaningful distinctions, but we cannot use them as the basis for exclusion. That's what we're talking about. So when we talk about human characteristics, those are some of the buckets that we're talking about. And it's important to look at those. And maybe you ascribe to some of these as your variables of choice for including or excluding. Maybe performance, you index really high on that variable and you're like, wow, you're just not a high performer, then it's exclusion for you. Or maybe it's ideological. You subscribe to this ideology, therefore you are in this bucket and I exclude the whole bucket just out the gate.

‍

0:22:47.3 Tim: And I look at you as inferior, right, Junior?

‍

0:22:50.3 Junior: Exactly. And one of the things that I like about this frame is that we don't necessarily use all of these variables to feel superior. Sometimes we use these to feel inferior. That's an interesting angle. And I think that that's also dangerous is you use these and put yourself into a deficit position. Now, talking about deficit positions, I want to make an acknowledgement here is that we will never assume to understand other people, their experience, the way that they see the world, because some people do come to the table in a real deficit position. Yeah, they do. By virtue of their race, their gender, or any one of many demographic variables or any of the variables that I just talked about, geographic variables, the list goes on and on and on.

‍

0:23:46.9 Tim: I'll make a comment on that, Junior. The danger of feeling inferior. So there's a body of theory here that's called stereotype trait theory or stereotype threat theory. And one of the social psychologists that is a pioneer in this area is Claude Steele. And what he helps us understand is that if you believe, if you think you are the target of a negative stereotype, you will act in accordance with that stereotype. You will conform to that stereotype in a negative way. You will reduce your performance. You'll comply with the lower expectations. That's a tragedy. But there's some truth to this. There's some empirical evidence that people will move to the expectation if they think they are a target of a negative stereotype. So that's why they call it stereotype threat theory. It's diminishing you. And you're feeling the impact of that stereotype on you. It's a real force. It's a degrading diminishing force. So we have to acknowledge how real this is. Students do this in school, right? If they think that they are the object of a negative stereotype, they will perform based on the expectations for that stereotype. We see it again and again. Study after study confirms this.

‍

0:25:24.4 Junior: I appreciate you sharing that. And it speaks to the responsibility that each of us has to acknowledge that, that people are coming to the table in different positions. Some of them may actually be the target of a negative stereotype. Some may think that they are the target of a negative stereotype. I mean, imagine just classroom to classroom in your example. That can be very, very different. And you say you get someone new on your team. They may be coming out of a traumatic experience. And the way that you treat them at the get goes very, very important. They may be coming to the table, not in a neutral position, but in a deficit position. We've worked with dozens and dozens of big multinationals and we're getting this feedback more than once. And that feedback is this. I feel, I as a person, that some acts of vulnerability are not just a little bit vulnerable for me in an emotional sense, but that they're actually physically vulnerable. They may actually be physically dangerous and this can be borne out in the data. And so acknowledging that, acknowledging that that is the experience of people that we interact with, that we may interact with every day is important.

‍

0:26:40.9 Junior: Because if you look at everyone the way that you look at yourself and oh, well that's not a vulnerable thing. No, people keep telling us, hey, look for me just showing up as a vulnerable thing. I don't even have to open my mouth before it's vulnerable for me. And acknowledging that is very, very important. If you're going to be competent in this area, just as a human generally, but certainly as a leader, if you're going to be a leader and you're going to manage, acknowledging this is very important.

‍

0:27:08.2 Tim: I had a woman talk to me the other day, Junior, and she's a member of an underrepresented population. And she said, Tim, please tell people not to tell me to just lean into my reality. That's not helpful because the reality is in some social situations, that's dangerous. I'm exposing myself to the real likelihood of hurt or loss. That's the reality. We have to acknowledge that. We cannot pretend to understand another's experience and we should not project our experience on them. There's so much to think about, but I would just encourage all of us to go back, crack yourself open, take a hard look inside at your values and your assumptions and your biases. And some will be hidden, some will be conscious, some will be unconscious. How do you make the unconscious conscious? How do you elevate those? It's going to come through conversation and dialogue and really paying attention. But it is unbelievable the absurd strains of social Darwinism that we subscribe to in our societies and have over time. It is unbelievable when you really think about it. It's a difficult issue to solve. So everything that we've talked about to this point affects organizations.

‍

0:28:51.8 Junior: It affects not just individuals, but organizations and the individuals inside them. And if we don't get this right, there are a few things that happen. And there are a few things that are happening because the default is that we don't get this right. We bleed out our top talent. We bleed out our diverse talent. That's one of the first things to go. People feel excluded and shut down. So we don't get divergent thinking. So we don't get innovation down the line. Engagement down, retention down. A whole host of other things we don't want to happen happen. This is costly. This is costly across many variables, right? Dollars not least. And organizations are feeling the pain. They're really feeling the pain. And that in conjunction with the fact that the tolerance has gone down, puts us in a very unique environment. And so the pain is high. The tolerance is low for this type of behavior, this type of exclusive exclusionary behavior. And organizations are asking themselves, oh, what do we do? What do we do? And these are the organizations that we have an opportunity to work with every day. And today we're not going to go into the nuance of all of our organizations.

‍

0:30:06.8 Junior: Every organization is unique. Every institution has its own nuances and patterns and behavior and historical culture. And every individual is different. But there are some things that we can say as general recommendations. The overarching recommendation that I would make just based on the conversation today is a pretty simple one, which is acknowledge the entitlements as you call them or the inalienable rights of every person and then behave in accordance with that acknowledgement. So the first thing we have to do, we have to ask ourselves the questions that we posed at the beginning of the podcast and figure out for ourselves, do I actually believe that all humans are created equal to speak to the first question? But then there's a follow up question that I was thinking about as I was going through the notes. There's still something missing. So what could I put in there? Because someone could say, yeah, I do, but then go and behave differently. So there's a follow up question that I would pose for each of us. Do I behave in a way such that others would say, I believe that all humans are created equal? And this is a question that I've spent some time asking myself on a personal level.

‍

0:31:22.1 Junior: And it's been an enlightening exercise for me. Because very quickly the answer, at least in my mind to that first question is yeah, absolutely. I believe that all humans are created equal, even though their flesh and blood is different from mine. They have different experience. But yeah, I believe they're equal. Would other people say that based on my behavior? I would hope so.

‍

0:31:45.0 Junior: And that's something that each of us needs to strive for is that our behaviors congruent with our beliefs. And hopefully those beliefs acknowledge the humanity of the people around us. And hopefully those beliefs lie on a bedrock of inclusion. And that we're not looking at some of those variables, some of those demographics as excuses for exclusion. So that's one of the things that I would point to first is acknowledge the rights of people, behave in a way that shows that you acknowledge those rights of people.

‍

0:32:21.3 Tim: I'll add to that a little bit, Junior. And let's go back in time, shall we? Let's go back to 1869 and let's go to Boston. And Frederick Douglass, the great social reformer is giving a speech. That speech by the way is known as the composite nation. And if you've never read it, you should go read it. It's brilliant. In that speech, Frederick Douglass made a statement that in my view, my humble opinion, everyone should commit to memory. He said, I know of no rights of race superior to the rights of humanity. Now we need to break this down a little bit. What is he saying? What he's saying is he's articulating, he's explaining the governing and organizing principle of inclusion. What he's saying is that the highest loyalty must be humanity. Let me go back to the statement. I know of no rights of race. What is race? Race is a human characteristic. Is it important? Absolutely. You don't think Frederick Douglass knew that that was important, but you can take it out. It's a placeholder in this statement. So take it out and put in the blank, fill in the blank, any other demographic variable or psychographic attitude, belief, assumption, value.

‍

0:33:57.9 Tim: So you can put in the box age or gender or educational attainment or political persuasion or religious affiliation or sexual orientation or whatever it may be. Just fill in the blank. I know of no rights of blank superior to the rights of humanity. Do you see what he's saying? Humanity becomes the highest loyalty. Now what's so fascinating is that when he gave this speech, he was advocating for the citizenship rights of Chinese immigrants back in 1869. That is astonishing to me, but he well understood how you create an environment of deep inclusion and you sustain that. Because if you pull off, if you pull off of that approach and you start to elevate one or a combination of human characteristics above humanity, you're on the slippery slope. You're in trouble. You are sowing the seeds of division. That's where we get into trouble. That's the wall that so many organizations hit in their journey to move from diversity to deep inclusion and then be able to sustain those conditions. It's not easy to do, but this is the organizing principle. This is how you install it. I have yet to find another way to do it.

‍

0:35:31.4 Tim: I don't know how you do it. You simply have to install humanity as the highest loyalty and subordinate all other human characteristics, which means differences and similarities, those become subordinate. There's no other way. But if you do that, watch out, you are able to create and sustain deep inclusion.

‍

0:35:58.2 Junior: I'm glad that you've shared these quotes. There are many, many people who have lived throughout many stages of history that can provide us with amazing insight, who have lived through things that we cannot imagine. There's a wealth of knowledge to be gained from looking at those. So I appreciate that perspective in today's episode. Stage one inclusion safety. Many of you are probably familiar with the four stages model. This is the stage that we would point to as it relates to this issue, inclusion and its social exchange. If you remember the social exchange for stage one, it's this. If you're human and don't present me with harm, I'm obligated to include you and invite you into my society. There's nothing else. So if you'd like to learn more about stage one, would highly recommend the episode that we did on stage one. We've done a webinar, a full webpage on inclusion safety. So a lot of assets regarding that stage. So if you want to shore up your knowledge a little bit there, do some exploring. Those are good assets for you. And of course, the book. If we build our lives and institutions on the foundation of psychological safety, many of the issues we face today, the ones that we've described, go away.

‍

0:37:09.9 Junior: And that may be a simplistic view. We know it's complicated. We know it's difficult. But there are some fundamental truths and principles that if we live by them, I think our experience, the experience of those around us will improve. We need to put humanity before human characteristics and we give basic respect and permission to participate. Those are some very actionable things that we can do. And I would encourage each of us to have a self inventory after going through this content, ask ourselves some penetrating questions and then just sit, sit and ponder the answers. Be humble and open to the fact that there may be some dissonance between what you believe and your behavior. Or maybe we need to start on beliefs and really think long and hard about those. It's important that we give time to that, that we not assume that we're in a great place. Because as I said previously, we may agree strongly that our beliefs are a certain way. Other people may not agree as strongly that our behavior says the same thing. And that's an important thing to consider. Tim, any final thoughts before we close up shop today?

‍

0:38:25.7 Tim: Yeah, I would just say, let's come back to our definition of psychological safety. It's a culture of rewarded vulnerability. So you can see that the need, the demand for social justice is directly connected to psychological safety. You can't get to social justice without traveling through psychological safety, without cultivating and fostering and creating the condition of psychological safety. There's no other way to get there. So I hope that you see the link. I hope that you see why the need and the demand for social justice is driving the interest in the demand for psychological safety. I hope you can see that relationship. It is a direct line of sight relationship. We need psychological safety in order to fulfill the promise of social justice.

‍

0:39:28.0 Junior: Thank you everyone today for your time and attention. We appreciate your time and attention. We know that you could be doing a lot of things, listening to a lot of different material, but you chose to listen to today's episode and we hope it was worth your while. We know that this is a delicate issue and that there's injustice in the world. And we're thankful for all the work that each of you does in the world, each of you do in the world. And we're here to support you here at Leader Factor. You can always reach out to us through leaderfactor.com. And as always, we appreciate your likes, your reviews and your shares. If you liked today's episode, we would highly encourage you to share this. This is an episode and this is content that the world needs to hear. So if you feel comfortable doing that, that would help spread the message of psychological safety and help us attack this big, big problem. And with that, we'll say goodbye and take care of everybody. We'll see you in the next episode.

‍0:40:24.2 Producer: Hey Culture by Design listeners, you made it to the end of today's episode. Thank you again for listening and for making culture something that you do by design and not by default. If you've enjoyed today's episode, please be so kind to leave us a review. It helps us reach a wider audience and accomplish our mission of influencing the world for good at scale. Today's episode show notes and other relevant resources related to today's topic can be found at leaderfactor.com/resources. And with that, we'll see you next episode.