.jpg)
The Reload with Sean Hansen
The Reload with Sean Hansen
Building Trust and Elevating Team Performance: Insights from Nick Norris - 212
Can genuine trust really elevate team performance to new heights? In this episode of The Reload, we promise to uncover the essential elements of building trust and vulnerability within teams, guided by the insights from episode 211 and our last conversation with Nick Norris, a seasoned entrepreneur and special operations veteran. We dive into the telltale signs of mistrust, like ineffective communication and defensive behavior, and discuss practical strategies to foster an environment where open dialogue and collaboration thrive.
Leadership is crucial in building trust, and we explore the pivotal role leaders play in setting the standard for a healthy team environment. From managing non-verbal cues to avoiding the pitfalls of "meetings after the meeting," we examine how dominant leaders can unintentionally silence quieter voices. We also address the personal pressures leaders face and how these can affect team dynamics. By sharing doubts and insecurities openly, leaders can steer their teams through uncertainty without falling into decision-making stagnation.
Balanced participation in team meetings is another key aspect we tackle, highlighting how excessive inclusivity can sometimes hinder rather than help. We discuss ways to manage discussions efficiently and distinguish between relevant and non-relevant issues. This episode is packed with actionable insights aimed at recognizing trust issues and fostering a more collaborative, high-performing team. Tune in to transform your leadership approach and elevate your team dynamics with these invaluable lessons.
Are you an executive, entrepreneur, or combat veteran looking to overcome subconscious blind spots and limiting messaging to unlock your highest performance? Feel free to reach out to Sean at Reload Coaching and Consulting.
Welcome to the Reload, where we help unconventional leaders craft the life they truly want by questioning the assumptions they have about how life works. My name is Sean and I'll be your host on this journey. As a performance coach and special operations combat veteran, I help high-performing executives kick ass in their careers while connecting with deeply powerful insights that fuel their lives. Okay, so in our last episode we ended up having a conversation with my friend, nick Norris, who is a multiple time entrepreneur and successful business person, after having spent a number of years in the military, especially in the special operations groups, and having also experienced combat deployments. So a gentleman who has invested a significant amount into his own education, experience, training, etc. Etc. And then who has also gone through a variety of oh, I guess you could say crucible moments in his life and chapters of life as well, and a lot of the lessons that Nick has learned. He's learned the hard way and has had to in many ways rethink and relook at elements of himself, elements of how he thought the world worked and how he fit in the world, and from that perspective and many others, I really value his contribution to the show and just also his willingness to acknowledge where he still has areas to learn and grow and develop, and I do my best on the show to try to emulate that behavior and to make sure that when I'm communicating a topic for a particular episode, that it comes across, hopefully, that I approach these subjects with humility and with an understanding that I too have a lot to learn and so hopefully you especially if this is your first episode that you're listening to get that sense and you get that feeling deep inside that I'm not here to point fingers and I'm not here to approach this from sort of a holier than thou perspective, but that I'm really hoping to get all of us to a better place of learning so that we actually can make the improvements that we think are relevant for our experience, and whether that's an experience at work or whether it's at home, in our relationships or wherever that might show up is, you know, that's up to you, but I want to make it really clear that any of these episodes, and most of the episodes, are inspired by and speaking to, issues that my coaching clients are facing or have faced or are about to face. It's very important that we always remember that when we take an opportunity to observe a situation that's not going well in the life of someone else, that we're not doing it to shoot them down, we're not doing it to point fingers, we're not doing it to present an argument or some sort of belief that we would do it better, because in most cases, most of the things that I end up talking about on the show I have done myself. You know, most of the missteps and most of the learning opportunities that my clients face are also learning opportunities that I've had to face.
Speaker 1:So, having said that, I wanted to dive into another discussion, sort of a follow-up discussion about team vulnerability and team trust and maybe to make this more of a bit of a punch list on signs and symptoms that your team lacks true trust and vulnerability, because I think sometimes it's difficult for us to know what problem am I facing or, if we want to be super coachy about it, we could say what opportunity am I facing. So sometimes it's useful to get into that space of saying, okay, well, you know, if you have these signs and symptoms, then it's quite possible and maybe even likely that your team does not have real trust and real vulnerability. And to do a little bit of a synopsis from the conversation with Nick. Why is that important? Well, because generally, when we have trust, we have real, genuine vulnerability, then the performance of the team improves. We don't have to look over our shoulder, we don't have to look over at another person's area of responsibility to make sure that they're covering things. We're able to discuss difficult topics that can have multiple different perspectives, without fear of reprisal or in some way being unacceptable to the group or losing our seat at the table, and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a bit. But when the team can really discuss in earnest, openly, very difficult subjects, then the performance of the team improves and the performance of the organization. Because, again, when I say team, most of the teams that I'm working with are leadership teams Well then the performance of the entire organization improves.
Speaker 1:And that is not just some abstract concept that shows up in financial performance, the ability to distribute bonuses, the ability for people to take care of their families, the ability for your employees, your team members, to buy more Christmas gifts or you know whatever, right. I mean just trying to put this into some some real world context here. And it's not just about delivering shareholder value, although that is also part of it. So let's go ahead and dive in here on some of the major signs and symptoms that your team is possibly lacking trust and vulnerability, and this is in no particular order, but these are just some of the things that have come up in conversations that I've had with my clients, and really are the things that have come up most commonly. Are there additional elements to this list?
Speaker 1:Most assuredly, but you know, I thought, unless we wanted to make this a, you know, like a seven hour podcast or something like that, that I would just stick with the ones that are most common. So right off the bat I would say, um, talking without communicating in a meaningful way, and sometimes people refer to this as lawyer speak now, no offense to all the lawyers out there, but in some ways the joke exists right, because there's this notion that, well, we can say a lot of things without actually communicating anything, and so when I observe a team that is, there's a lot of sort of verbal jousting happening, but without anyone having a real concrete idea of what's being said, and typically around sensitive topics, that is usually an indication that the speaker doesn't really feel safe to come out and say what is actually on their mind, and so that dovetails kind of into the next sign and symptom, which is feeling that one has to carefully monitor one's words. And there's a sort of corollary here, which is that, conversely, we can also notice that there's a lack of trust and vulnerability if we notice that people fall into ad hominem attacks. And with ad hominem attacks, in case we're a little rusty on our definitions here, really what we're looking at is when we make arguments that are appealing to emotion or sentiment or prejudices rather than the intellectual points or the merit points of an argument. Another definition is that it's marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the connections or contentions made.
Speaker 1:So really, if you notice that a lot of your team conversations and it might just be between one or two people, who knows but if you notice that there's often sort of a de-evolution of the conversation down into more personal attacks as opposed to really addressing the merits of the argument itself, then chances are there's not really a lot of trust and vulnerability there and there's a lot of kind of defensive sparring happening instead. And that's also typically indicated when you start to begin to see these attacks being combined with absolutes. Or you know well, you always do this or you never do that. And again, as much as I can, I try to make these conversations or these episodes relevant for both work and personal life, and so sometimes the well you always do or you never do shows up more in our personal life, in our personal relationships. But I've also seen it play out at work as well, which is why I'm raising it here, and you might be thinking well, to what extent does speaking in absolutes really matter?
Speaker 1:And in my research for this episode, one of the things that I came across was a discussion on Medium where the author was talking about speaking in absolutes many times means ignoring the facts at hand, with a predetermined response, and so, as we look at how this affects team trust and team vulnerability, I think sometimes what ends up happening is that we are overly attached to our ideas, and this is actually another sign and symptom is there's an unwillingness to have one's ideas challenged. And this notion that you know, it's interesting for me to observe, because when I start to speak with a given leader or a team of leaders, there's often, there's often a statement that they believe in the meritocracy of ideas, that the best idea should win, and I don't know if they actually believe that or not, and the reason I question that is because oftentimes in their behavior what I will see is that everything is pretty civil until someone's idea is challenged and then things start to get pretty defensive and in you know, the most extreme cases it gets pretty nasty right and we can start to get into yelling matches in front of the group or the entire group kind of devolves into a screaming match. You know, that's when it's generally at its worst, and what I've noticed is this notion of being overly attached to our, to one's idea. Really, what we're looking at there at least from what I've been able to discern in the coaching conversations that I've had where this has come up is that what's happening under the surface is that the person's ego has become so entrenched in this notion that the person's ideas equal their self-worth or their identity, and so when the idea is being questioned, the person that submitted the idea to the group feels like they personally are being attacked. And so where is it that we can hold our convictions, or at the very least our ideas, a little bit lighter, you know, without such a death grip? And how do we allow ourselves to have a bit more space, I guess, or freedom between.
Speaker 1:Well, this is an idea that we came up with, my team, my division, my department, whatever, or just myself, and I'm willing to accept opposing ideas. I'm willing to accept criticism of my idea and I'm not personally. I don't feel deep inside that I'm being personally attacked when somebody comes at my idea. But if you have a lot of defensiveness there, then chances are you're not really existing as a team in a place of strong trust and strong vulnerability. And having said that, strong trust and strong vulnerability, and having said that, you know, a lot of times we look at an unwillingness to go first and unwillingness to really submit ideas as a another sign and symptom that trust and invulnerability are absent. So, uh, let's see. I just kind of got myself a little bit out of order there in terms of the flow.
Speaker 1:But going back to my bullet points here, another element that tends to show us that we're not dealing in an environment of trust and vulnerability is that there is often a behavior of finding fault in other people's ideas or actions versus open acknowledgement of one's own shortfalls, and oftentimes it's sort of CYA behavior, cover your ass behavior and that can be cover your ass because vice president X blames vice president Y, or vice president X blames one of the subordinates of vice president Y, or vice president X blames one of vice president X's subordinates, right, I mean, that's also something that happens, not infrequently, and I would say that any of those is potentially an indication that we're not operating in a place where people feel comfortable to just own it, right and granted that, I would say. And with any of these signs and symptoms, I guess we could also look at the possibility that it's the individual themselves and not the environment. However, the more of these that stack up and the more that show up in different individuals on the team, now, if it's all isolated to just one individual, then that's probably an indication that they themselves are, you know, challenged and have some real development areas to work on. But if the team notices that there's, you know, many of these different signs and symptoms and they're spread out across the group as a whole or the team as a whole, then I would be more inclined to look at the environment itself. Okay, so moving on, the other piece here is looking at where it is that certain topics are off limits, and when I say off limits, you know you're gonna have to imagine that with like air quotes. So it's not necessarily that I don't know there's some sort of virtual fencing put around the topic. But where are there topics that nobody really wants to introduce, nobody really wants to talk about them. If they do happen to, you know, get stumbled upon in the middle of conversation. Get stumbled upon in the middle of conversation because most of the time the team leader has shown a really negative response to discussing that topic, and it doesn't.
Speaker 1:It's not the sole domain of the team leader, but generally the team leader is the one that has the most influence on the group, and especially with the teams that I tend to work with, that team leader is usually a CEO and the CEO has a lot of authority and a lot of power. And quite frequently the CEO is in a position where even the slightest frown or crinkling of the brow or whatever ends up sending really strong signals to the rest of the team Okay, this is unsafe territory, let's go somewhere else. So if you are the team leader and listening to this, especially if you're a CEO, then it's really useful, I think, to try to also manage your own expressions and sort of unintended communication. Where else do we need to look. Oh, here's another common one the meeting after the meeting syndrome.
Speaker 1:Now, most corporations that I've been to do not believe that they have too few meetings. Most of the people I've ever spoken with in the corporate setting believe that their their schedules are just chock-a-block with meetings and the complaint most often is that we're having too many meetings. And not only are we having too many meetings, but we're not actually getting enough done in those meetings, not reaching sort of a clear, decisive finality. So when we're looking at meeting after the meeting syndrome generally, what I've noticed and what clients of mine have brought to my attention is that there is a topic that's brought up in front of the team and there are certain elements that are discussed, certain elements that are avoided, and whether they're avoided outright or whether the a certain facet was raised momentarily and then there was, um, some sort of negative reaction to it and then quickly that facet was bypassed. But then after the meeting, if there's a lot of sort of caloric expenditure and I don't necessarily mean that literally, but sort of notional caloric expenditure of, okay, well, you know what happened, what do you think so-and-so actually meant? Or you know what are we actually going to do about this? What are we actually going to do about this? And a lot of kind of you know, ducking into other people's offices or random sort of let me pull you aside real quick in the hallway to sort of try to get some confirmation here or validating of the idea that was presented, or you know, whatever the case may be.
Speaker 1:But this notion that we don't actually decide things in meetings, that we actually end up deciding the course of action in these, I don't know, you call it sort of like back office conversations, and what does that do for the team? What is that doing in terms of just inefficiency, first off, and then, secondly, what is it doing in terms of commuting, uh, communicating, excuse me, a a sense to various team members that, and perhaps the entire team, that we don't ever really decide things in front of the group, that's, that's always sort of behind closed doors, and what does that end up doing in terms of sort of influence peddling? What does that end up doing in terms of sort of influence peddling? And then how is it that influence is eroding team trust and also eroding or corroding the belief in the meritocracy of ideas? So that's another sort of critical area to take a look at All right.
Speaker 1:Another one and this is not meant to pick on team leaders, but oftentimes in scenarios where, especially if I've done a 360 and there's a strong conclusion or not conclusion, but I guess a strong pattern being identified or an inference that the team leader is very domineering and you know, there's a little bit of a uh, chicken and the egg situation going on here, because oftentimes team leaders became team leaders because they have a very dominant personality, they're very assertive, very aggressive and oftentimes, especially in very competitive marketplaces, it is those dominant personalities that step forward for leadership and partly, I think there's a healthy ambition there. And then also, when you have someone that is less dominant and less aggressive, they tend not to step forward, and so then there's also kind of this self-selection that ends up happening in personnel. And so ultimately, most of the leaders that are out there are very dominant personalities and that's not necessarily good or bad. A lot of it depends on how does that fit in with the way that the rest of the team is structured and how does that dominant team leader personality maintain systems or processes or personal habits to ensure that the quieter voices at the table are still being heard and that that perspective, that contribution, is still being incorporated, that that perspective, that contribution is still being incorporated.
Speaker 1:Now, going back to the point at hand, when we have a situation where there is an extremely dominant team leader, this can often create a lack of trust and vulnerability that there is potentially some bullying happening. And I would generally say that, at least with the folks that I've worked with, I think that they're all good people and that they don't intend to behave like bullies and that the bullying aspect can show up when they themselves are pressured. Pressured and oftentimes, you know, especially with top level leadership in companies, they end up being very underslept, poorly nourished. You know they're often traveling, hopping time zones, not necessarily having the best diet, and the consistency of their diet is often changing quite a bit because of the fact that they're traveling so much. And you know, and predominantly, the sleep thing and you know, various other self-care habits or rituals are very tough to maintain when somebody is always traveling and so when there's a lot of pressure being applied to them in context of this kind of these gaps, I guess in their self-care, then oftentimes that bullying behavior shows up.
Speaker 1:Now, should they get a pass because of that? I don't believe so and I would say that, knowing my clients, most of them would not want to have a pass. They would want to be called out or, what I like to say, called up to a higher standard. It's just that, and I don't think that this is a big intellectual leap. It's hard. It's hard for them to behave as their higher self might wish when they are facing a lot of these sort of very basic stressors to their physiology, and then also the mental and emotional stressors of running the company because, again, a lot of my clients are ceos and then the pressures that they're under, you know, from the board and the marketplace and etc. Etc.
Speaker 1:So what do we do with that? Well, if we know that we have a domineering team leader some of the things that we get to look out for and if you are the team leader listening to this, then these the things that we get to look out for, and if you are the team leader listening to this, then these are things that you might want to look out for in yourself and your own behavior is where are you exhibiting favoritism? Favoritism is one surefire way to create a lack of trust and vulnerability in your team. If there is this perception that some people are protected or have special status in some way, then that's not going to go so well, and oftentimes what that then does in the team is it ends up creating this disproportionate and unhealthy level or emphasis on trying to please the team leader or making sure that one is the team leader's favorite, and then that can also then lead to factions, and factions are certainly not a way to have vulnerability and trust on a team.
Speaker 1:Now, coupled in with all of that, and usually connected with this whole, am I one of the favorites or am I? Am I in or am I out? If I'm in, if I'm on the outside, then very often the individuals are going to start to feel like their seat at the table will be removed if they end up challenging the in-group or the majority right. So you, in that situation, you're definitely going to start getting less and less challenging ideas, as we sort of, you know, have a regression to the mean, as it were, and trying to sort of not ruffle feathers and trying to get to a place of acceptable ideas versus ideas that really challenge the direction of the company or the group, to make sure that we're still staying true to our charter, or our mission or our purpose or you know whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1:Now, one other element that I think can be difficult to track in the short term, but becomes much more relevant spread over time, are a couple of different things that that ended up kind of being very subtle initially, and that is lack of clarity. And it ties in a little bit with what I was saying earlier about people doing a lot of talking without actually communicating a whole lot, you know, beating around the bush, not really saying what you mean. But when I say lack of clarity, I mean that more in the sense of where the team or the organization as a whole doesn't really have a firm grasp on what do we do next? What are we aiming for? Aiming for Now?
Speaker 1:Is it fair to say that companies are never going to be able to know how the future is going to unfold? Yes, of course we none of us know how the future is going to unfold. However, there's a difference between not knowing that and then doing the best we can to come up with a meaningful strategy to move forward and everyone's saying, okay, yeah, I mean this isn't perfect, we will never have perfect information, but we're doing the best we can. We're going to move forward, and we're going to move forward collectively. And there just being a lot of fuzziness around that. And if you aren't sure as a leadership team, if you're not sure about the direction of the company or, at the very least, you're not willing to put your confidence in, this is how we're going to move forward for now, then at the very least you should, I think, have the confidence to be able to recognize okay, we don't know all the answers, we don't have the proof, and we're doing the best that we can to figure it out. And here is the cadence at which we will reevaluate this.
Speaker 1:So you're attempting to create some element of stability in a very unstable world, right, and some people like the VUCA acronym. And so this volatile, uncertain, complex, et cetera, et cetera, world is not going to go away. And so, then, this lack of clarity that we're going to be facing, how do we get to a place, as a team, where we can own up to our insecurity about not knowing? Can we admit that to one another? Can we admit that not just in terms of a dry analytical statement of the obvious, but can we also communicate it from our emotions, our emotions, meaning and I'm not saying that we need to just sit there and, like, talk about our feelings all day but can we just have an open acknowledgement of, yeah, I'm feeling, I'm feeling anxious or I'm feeling insecure about the fact that we don't know what the price of blank commodity is going to be and I don't know how we're going to cover that? And that's one of the things that I think we need to decide right, I'm just sort of riffing on like a one example that might be relevant.
Speaker 1:So, if you're not going to actually have real clarity, because you can never know the future, where can you have clarity around the steps that you'll take? And then, more importantly, when it comes to team trust and vulnerability, how is it that you can openly communicate about your uncertainty and have it be okay, have the rest of the team receive it and say, oh, yeah, yeah, like well, I feel the same thing and sure, we're the leadership team. So at some point, we're going to have to figure out, like, okay, well, what's the next step and how are we going to communicate the next step, especially if your company happens to be in a very challenged time at the moment? But that willingness to really expose one's own sense of doubt and one's own sense of uncertainty and to have it received and to have it, you know, to have it be okay that maybe you feel that way, even if you're the only one that feels that way, which would be interesting. I mean, most of the time, from what I've seen, there are others in the group that have that same level of insecurity. But what a real test of trust and vulnerability for one person to be able to express that and, even if no one else on the team feels it, for them to also be able to say, hey, it's okay, it's okay that you feel that. Is there something that we, you know, if we don't feel that same level of insecurity, is there something that we can talk through that would help, that would allow the the the loner in that case to to feel a greater sense of certainty, like the rest of the team? Or, potentially, has the loaner identified something that the rest of the group has not identified? And then, all of a sudden, it's like, oh well, maybe we have something, maybe we have something here to really discuss and to figure out, and I think that that's also one of the areas where, going back to sort of the entrenchment on one's own ideas.
Speaker 1:There are times which in which a team doesn't want to address how difficult the circumstances are and it can be very overwhelming some of the challenges that leadership teams have to face. And so sometimes when you have somebody yelling out, you know fire in sort of a metaphorical way. People don't want to see it. They don't want to see that the metaphorical house is on fire because they're already so overwhelmed. But in the space of overwhelm, if the team lacks trust and the true vulnerability to come together, they're not going to lean on each other, they're going to lean away from each other, they're going to silo, they're going to end up in their own individual fortress of solitude, and that's not a good place to operate from if you want a cohesive team that can really truly perform at its best and create the highest level of value. Probably have done that one to death, so anyway.
Speaker 1:So the next symptom here is the lack of reaching a decision in the meeting, and we talked a little bit about the meeting after the meeting. But in this case what I'm talking about is more around this notion of where is it that ideas get kicked around over and over and over again, like until it's just ad nauseum. And for those that are a little fuzzy on their uh, their Latin it means to a sickening or excessive degree, and I think we've all been there, at least, uh, all of us that have been in the corporate world, we've all been in a situation and I think this also shows up in personal relationships as well We've all had the topic that due to a multitude of reasons and the more people that you involve in a decision-making generally, the worse this gets that it's never decided, we don't reach a place of consensus and I'm not going to dig into consensus today, but I think I think that might be worthy of a of its own episode here. But you know, we're not going to reach consensus and therefore we don't actually make a decision. We just kind of defer and we table it and it'll come up next time, and then again it comes up, and then again it comes up, and again it comes up, and you get to a place where people are just kind of they adopt this like effort mentality and they just want it done, but at that point the team's not really actually thinking critically anymore, they just want it off their plate, and and so that's. That's also a notion of where it is that we're not willing to get into real thorny issues and we'll defer it until it's a real dumpster fire, and then somebody is just going to lay down the law and make I mean, usually the team leader is going to lay down the law and just make a decision on it. Is that the best way to make decisions? I would argue that most people would say no, right, because now, all of a sudden, we're just slapping a judgment on it and, and you know, calling it done. There may be times when that is actually the best way to deal with it, who knows, but I would argue that most of the time probably not.
Speaker 1:And so then, the last main symptom or common symptoms that I could come up with here is that symptom or common symptoms that I could come up with here? Is that there's, there's an excessive focus on every person chiming in on all issues, and oftentimes, from what I've seen. Again, you know, and and please, like you know, dear listener, don't take my voice as the sole voice as to the merits of these various aspects Feel free to challenge the experiences and observations that I'm bringing forward here or the conclusions that I'm drawing, at the very least. Hopefully, this episode is there to bring some of these issues to the foreground in your thinking and your observation. But from what I've seen, when a team is excessively focused on every person chiming in on all issues, even though a lot of issues are not germane to the entirety of the team but when it's like, well, you know, everyone needs to have a turn and everyone has to have their say, otherwise people are going to feel very offended or start to get resentful that they're not, they're not getting the appropriate airtime, because again, that kind of ties in with this, like who's on the in crowd, who's in the out crowd, who's the leader's favorite stuff, like that. Well, that's also an indication that you're not really operating in a place of real trust and vulnerability.
Speaker 1:Where is it that people are? Either the team leader is trying to create this environment that everybody gets to talk an equal amount of time at all times, and again, the the bigger the team, the harder that gets, because you just have more people and it takes up more and more time and you know just the snowball from there or you have individuals on the team who, through subtle or not so subtle means, communicate their displeasure that well, my voice wasn't heard on that issue and therefore I'll make it difficult on this other issue. And it's like, really why? Why, if you don't, if you don't have anything of real substance and merit to add to a certain topic or certain area, subject matter, what's what's so bad about just staying silent or saying, you know, hey, is, is this something that the rest of us like? For instance, let's just say that there's an issue and this is something I've have observed when I've gone to team meetings and just watched how teams conduct themselves There'll be an issue that's really only relevant to two people on the team and then it takes up the majority of the conversation. And then you get to sort of the end of the meeting time and it's like, oh well, we didn't get to all this other stuff. Like, hmm, okay, maybe there's room to figure out that. Okay, this is not germane for the group and can we talk about it later.
Speaker 1:Having said that, there's also the converse example, which is too frequently relying on. Let's talk about this offline. Now. You might think that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, and in some ways I am, and part of that is because for me to speak about general guidelines here and general examples that I've observed, without being able to flesh out the exact histories of a certain team or group, makes this a little bit tough, I guess, to deliver over a podcast, but what I mean by this is there are instances where I've observed or had it reported back to me that a certain individual, and this one, is not just the sole domain of the team leader by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 1:This also happens with, like, individual team members where they have an over-reliance on. Well, let's talk about this offline, and again, there are times when that is appropriate because it's, it's truly is an issue that is not germane to the rest of the team, and I think that's the litmus test that you really need to be looking at. There is does this affect the team as a whole or really is this a A to B conversation? When it's over relied upon is when the litmus test says no, actually this is a, this is a topic for the group, but the individual that has suggested that you know A and B take it offline, then that's typically indicative of a feeling that they're not, it's not safe to talk about in front of the group, even though it's a topic that is relevant for the whole group. So hopefully that clarifies what I mean there.
Speaker 1:And so if you have somebody or multiple somebody's that are sort of routinely trying to take stuff offline, even though the group can see that, oh no, actually this is relevant for all of us to hear, you know, and not just like juicy gossip, but that it's really truly relevant for the rest of the group to hear, but that that tactic of let's take it offline is being utilized over and over and over again, probably, and also an indication that you're not operating in an environment of real trust and vulnerability. So hopefully this has been helpful for you. If it has, I would love it. Even if it hasn't, I guess I would still love it if you would like subscribe, follow, share all that other stuff, and of course, you don't have to. So until next time, take care of each other.
