Manipulation vs. Persuasion: A Clear Distinction (with Jay Conger)

0:00So what's the difference between manipulation and persuasion? So very clear differences, but here's the catch. When a manipulative persuader is persuading you, Kim, she or he will always say, this is for you. I'm doing something special. It's for your benefit. You'll later discover that actually it was for them. It's purely self-serving. So intent is the key difference. So on the manipulative side, it's self-serving intent. On the constructive or real side, it actually is designed to benefit beyond the persuader. There's some type of mutual benefit or benefit to the team or to the organization or to a client.

0:43Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Radical Sabbatical. I'm Kim Scott, talking to some of the authors of the books that have made a huge difference in my life. And with me today, I am thrilled to say, is Jay Conger. Dr. Conger is the Henry Kravis Chair Professor of Leadership Studies at Claremont McKenna College. And he is an incredible author of the book, The Persuasive Leader. And he led big teams at a solar company for a long time. So he also has walked the talk as an operating executive. So welcome, Jay. Thank you, Kim. Looking forward to our conversation about persuasion. As am I. So I have taught a number of technical leaders about persuasion, and they're always very skeptical of persuasion.

1:40So why are people skeptical about persuasion? And is this a new problem? No, it's actually a very, very ancient problem. As a matter of fact, Plato, who was actually very good at persuasion, argued that this group of kind of what we'll call early persuasion teachers. The rhetoric, right? Right, exactly. And these people would travel around and they would teach the children of the elite how to argue. And one of the tactics was to teach you to be able to argue both sides of an issue. And so Plato felt that that was pretty manipulative because if you could take both sides and persuade both sides, then you didn't have a moral compass.

2:29There was no north. You were able to go south, east and west. And then when we come to today, when I often ask audiences, particularly managers and executives, what occupations quickly come to your mind when I use the word persuasion within a millisecond, used car salesman. boom so you you've got the kind of slick right checkered shirt right short hat kind of character who's trying to sell you a lemon describing it as a one-of-a-kind opportunity that is fleeting right um the other category not so surprisingly that people put their hand up is politics or politicians uh where they're trying to sell you you know i'm gonna promise you something and you know I may or may not deliver it but this is what I'm promising you so it has a public relations problem and um very ironic isn't it it is you know and I talk about this in the book when you look at your day Kim literally every meeting you're in at work someone is trying to persuade somebody or a whole group is trying to persuade one person or you have something you want to persuade the group of.

3:46And then, of course, when you go home, there are these little mini moments where I'd say, hey, Kim, let's have sushi tonight. And let's have a burger. So it often collapses into negotiations instead of persuasion. But much of our day is spent in this activity. By the way, we sanitize it. We don't call it persuasion. We call it sharing a point of view or having a perspective. but when you strip away the language, you realize it is persuasion. It's having a point of view. You want to bring people to that point of view. So it definitely has had a longstanding PR dilemma, and that's led people not to see the more positive or what I call real persuasion side, and it's also led people to undervalue it as a skill.

4:36Yeah, to be skeptical. I think a lot of people think of it as manipulation. not persuasion. That's right. And so what's the difference between manipulation and persuasion? So very clear differences, but here's the catch. When a manipulative persuader is persuading you, Kim, she or he will always say, this is for you. I'm doing something special. It's for your benefit. As a matter of fact, the more they emphasize that, you probably know you're with a manipulative persuader.

5:08When you later agree and maybe sign a check or commit to something, you'll later discover that actually it was for them. It's purely self-serving. So intent is the key difference. So on the manipulative side, it's self-serving intent. On the constructive or real side, it actually is designed to benefit beyond the persuader. There's some type of mutual benefit or benefit to the team or to the organization or to a client. The tools or tactics over on the manipulative side include kind of classic ones like lies, falsehoods, leaving out critical information that if you knew about it, Kim, you'd say, no way.

5:52Lies, no mission. Yeah. That's right. A false sense of urgency, sometimes a sense of false scarcity. So at a used car lot, the salesman might say, this is a one of a kind. I've never seen this before. I just had a young couple. They just went to see if they get their parents done to ride the car. I see you in this car, not them. And oh, by the way, we've only got 10 minutes. So please hurry. Yeah, yeah. So those are the tactics on the manipulative side. We'll talk more throughout our conversation about the constructive side, but they're very different. and it really requires a different mindset to do the constructive or real side.

6:33Yeah, yeah. And you use an ancient framework to help people stay on the right side. And part of the reason I love the book is that when I taught communicating at fill-in-the-blank big tech company, I used Aristotle's framework too. So describe the framework, and I'll tell you why I used it, if you'll tell me why you used it. I'd be delighted. so as you know it's the oldest kind of recorded framework for thinking about persuasion and if we put aristotle in the context of ancient greece where you had a republic and you would have these decision makers who you know i think roughly 2 000 people would come together and they would have to debate what the decisions were do we go to war with this group Do we build another temple to Athena?

7:23So any big decision required conversation and debate. And Aristotle also was in many ways, today we call him a quasi-attorney. He would take on court cases like Cicero. And so in addition to the forum where decisions were made, these individuals were also teaching clients how to argue a case or they're arguing a case in a, quote, judicial kind of. It's very different from today's kind of setting. So Aristotle said there are three fundamental dimensions you have to be aware of. The first one was ethos. And ethos was whether we could today translate that, are you kind of an ethical person? Credibility is how I translated it.

8:12Yeah, and it relates very specifically to the persuader. So we may talk later about the fact that credibility comes in multiple forms, but he felt you had to be credible, you had to be trustworthy to be an effective persuader. Then he talked about logos, which is your ability to organize arguments. Today we call that the logic of your arguments. and did you not only have the right arguments but did you order them in the right way and then the final thing was pathos emotions which um related to connecting persuasion to emotions that would mobilize people right not your emotions their emotions their emotions and of those logos has survived yes and i will stop it at the logic yes and if you think about powerpoint powerpoint in some ways is the perfect medium for logos because you could take everything and organize it by bullet points in a very quote logical manner and you could present your arguments as little strips of words after a bullet point.

9:28And so it's not surprising that PowerPoint and logos are almost synonymous in my mind. Athos really depends on the context, but we'll talk more about the importance of credibility and getting a hearing. But in those days, Aristotle was quite concerned about the kind of moral compass of people persuading. and today we've kind of diluted that a bit. And pathos is so important, but it's interesting. We don't talk enough about it today. Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally agree. How did you get into utilizing Aristotle's? I was just sort of struggling. I wanted to talk about telling stories and hook that into emotion.

10:22I was struggling to get these engineers away from logic. And also they were very much afraid to establish, or reluctant, afraid is the wrong word, reluctant to, it felt arrogant to them to establish their credibility, but they needed to explain why they were the right people to make the decisions that they were entrusted with making. And I had never heard of the framework, but I was working with someone who was more of a philosopher than I am. And he said, you've got to go read this. I'm like, oh, this is not, you know, it's like a huge relief. People have been thinking about this for a long time.

11:00I can just use this other framework that has stood the trust of time. So I love a good framework, especially one that's been pounded on for a few thousand years. Two thousand years. Yeah. Yeah. And then it was really honed by people who followed like Cicero. Yeah. Yeah. And all the rhetoricians. and part of the class that I taught focused on what you have to do before you should be in persuade mode like it's very important to get into and it was interesting because I talked a lot about you want to listen to the other people and know who you're talking to you want to clarify your own thinking you want to have these debates then you want to decide what you think and then it's time to persuade and I think again you made this point that you don't determine your credibility, your audience does and so you better know your audience before you go into persuade mode and you told this great story about Cornerstone Capital so maybe share that story with folks and Michael?

12:12Yes, Michael's train wreck and how he got back on track So there was a big scandal which occurred in the first decade of the 21st century related to insider trading. And Michael was an attorney for, it's a fairly sizable investment firm, Cornerstone. And he and his boss, who is the chief attorney for the firm, said, you know, this is so serious. We can't set ourselves up for liabilities. And so I think what we're going to have to do is ask all the investors not to rely on a minimum external experts. Because it could lead to some kind of gray zone and we could get in trouble. So Michael sat down after this mandate from the boss, and he kind of worked through his persuasion, what he was going to argue as to why all these investors had to stop using experts to further kind of firm up that this is a good investment.

13:17So he walks into the Tuesday morning meeting, which is a room full of just investors. And it's announced that later in the meeting, Michael's going to have something to share with the group. So his moment finally comes and he walks them through what's happening in the external world, all the investigations by the attorney general's office, who's getting in trouble and what the implications will be for Cornerstone. At which point he says, and this leads us to conclusion, we cannot use the following forms of experts. So he then encounters one question after the other. It's a barrage. And of course, he has not interviewed a single investor.

13:59He doesn't understand how they work or the implications of what he's trying to persuade them of. He doesn't really know what he's trying to persuade them of. That's right, Kim. And it's really wonderful because I know Michael well. And today he's a very sophisticated persuader. But as he said to me, he said, Jay, I had no idea the types of questions that were coming at me. And he stumbles over and over and over again. And finally, the most kind of revered investor asks him pointedly, does this mean we cannot do X, Y, and Z anymore? And he's like, I don't know. Well, that was probably the best moment in the meeting.

14:41Like for him to admit that is when he probably began to get back on track. Yeah, certainly in terms of his journey to becoming a good persuader. But as he said to me, he said, you know, I kind of thought my career was over. I had ended it in that moment. And he went back and he really invested in interviewing the investors. And as he said to me, you know, I started to realize how complicated this issue was and how naive I was. And what I love about his story is the fact that oftentimes you're a deep expert, but you're persuading people who are not. And you have to be able to understand the world from their point of view.

15:26You have to know who they are. And then the other thing about persuasion is it often occurs in these brief moments of high visibility.

15:38And two things can happen. One, you can lose the opportunity, and it may be hard to get it back again. And two, you can lose your credibility in that moment. Yes. So you lose the idea and your credibility, and both can be difficult to retrieve and rebuild. Yeah, yeah. And you talk about, I think you called it the curse of knowledge. Like sometimes if you don't understand what other people know and don't know, then you give them the wrong information or you give them too much or too little information. And, you know, one of the worst examples, most difficult to read about examples, this was part of the class that I teach, is the challenger launch decision.

16:26Oh, yeah. So the engineer, Roger Boisle, who worked on the O-ring, which is the part that failed, went home the night before the launch and told his wife, we decided to kill seven astronauts today. And then in all of the aftermath, he was interviewed and he said, anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that rubber doesn't work worth a damn at freezing temperatures. And what he had done is he had barraged them with so much data that they got lost in the data. He wasn't able to distill his message. Like, if he had said that, they probably wouldn't have launched, which is so painful. Yeah, how did he carry that weight throughout your life?

17:11Yeah. That you couldn't persuade these decision makers about the life of these astronauts. Yeah. He thought they were so focused on launching the next day that they didn't care. That's why it's important to get to know the people who you're talking to before you start trying to establish your credibility, I think. I think one of my most effective change agents was an individual, in the sense of being master of persuasion. He said to me, he said, Jay, look, how I think of persuasion, it's 90 % listening and 10 % talking. Yes. And I said, no, no, no, you've got to be kidding. That's a lot of listening.

17:55You can't be right. So I said, do you mind if I shadow you for a couple of days? And he said, not a problem. And by the way, he wasn't very senior. So he didn't carry a lot of authority. But what I watched him do is he would come into your office and he'd begin by saying, Kim, I'm thinking about this problem. Is this a problem from your perspective? so he was testing whether you perceived a problem and what was your take on that problem and whether there was any urgency to solve it and and i started to realize that the best persuaders really start with a problem they don't start with their solution and one of the dilemmas of being an expert is you are solution centric yes because you believe everybody's looking for a solution and you're going to be the one to give it to them.

18:43But the minute you move into a solution, you get pride of ownership and it becomes very difficult to flex. And I've said the, you know, my definition of persuasion is holding a strong point of view, loosely held. Yes, yes, yes. It's a period of time. Paul Seffo's. Yes. Strong opinions, loosely held. So important. Yeah. Yeah. And that's why you need to decide. I mean, because because if you don't have a strong opinion, then then it's hard to demonstrate your ethos. That's right. You're blowing in the wind. Yeah. If you're if you're if you don't hold it loosely, then you're not listening well enough.

19:28And they're looking that's exactly they're looking to see, will you incorporate my view or my ideas in your solution? Yeah. And that's why it's really at its heart of dialogue. Our stereotype is a pitch or elegant monologue. And that's largely thanks to TEDx and watching famous people's speeches. But those are really the rarity. And a lot of work has usually gone into that TEDx talk behind the scenes. Yeah, you've mapped the territory. You put it very well. You say you've got to map the territory before you march. I love that. What's another good example of someone who mapped the territory and understood people so they were able to establish credibility when they went in?

20:20Well, one of my favorite stories in the book is about Julie Morath, who became the chief operating officer of a children's hospital in Minnesota. And I interviewed Julie a number of times, and there was a Harvard Business School case study written about her. And her passion in life is patient safety. and she was part of a multi-year study at the Harvard Medical School looking at the fact that despite metrics and systems in hospitals there are a lot of errors that occur yes that are not caught and when she arrives at Children's Hospital she does tell the CEO that I'm happy to be the COO but I tell you my mission is going to be patient safety yeah and as Julie said to me she said look Jay, you go to a children's hospital and you tell the nurses, the doctors, the pharmacists that they don't deliver the safest care.

21:17They are going to laugh you out of the building because they'll tell you we're dealing with children. And so you bet we are always focused on safety. So one of the worst things she could have done is to bring in these Harvard studies, which a little bit later she does. But she said, you know, I didn't want them to see that they They were falling short. I didn't want to challenge their concerns for safety. What I realized is I had to frame it as taking those concerns and making our system go to an even new world-class level. So I was trying to help them understand we can evolve to be the safest hospital in the world.

22:00We can have zero errors. but what she did is she did these small focus groups over about a year in which she would sit down confidential focus groups doctors and nurses and she would say what do you think have we delivered the safest possible care this week or the last month and have you had any near misses and as she said you know at first if you it took a little while for people to say well well, we did have a near miss. Yes. And she'd say, She really had to earn their trust. That's it, credibility. And what she would do is she'd take that, she'd say, okay, walk us through all the different factors that might have led to this.

22:45And what she was doing was helping them understand that most medical errors are systemic errors. Yeah, the problem is not the individual, it's the system. Yeah. And then she built this coalition, of very senior people, but she had the nurse, the head of the nursing union. She had a lot of admired people on the coalition. And then when you look at how she generated ideas, almost all of them came from the nurses and doctors on the ground. So they owned their initiatives. And when an initiative took off and proved to be very successful, she would have them share that, and then it would be adopted by other units in the hospital.

23:26Yeah. So that's part of what you mean when you talk about borrowed credibility. You're not taking credit. You're giving credit. And one of the fastest ways to do that, and John Cotter at Harvard talked about this in his Leading Change books that he wrote, is you have to have a guiding coalition because they extend your credibility or they boost your credibility, particularly in Julie's case because she's an outsider. So she not only has little to no credibility, but often we see outsiders as coming to fix us. Yes. And what's wrong with us? So you automatically get a lot of pushback. So outsiders particularly need a coalition of highly admired insiders to boost their credibility.

24:14Yeah. So you're not saying I'm so great, but you're saying you're so great. That's it. So I want to get some advice, because I think from you, because I think I kind of messed this up when I was publishing Radical Candor. One of the things I was most nervous about when I was publishing the book is, why would anybody listen to me? You know, find this director at Google. And I've done three failed startups. Why would you listen to me? And so I told a lot of stories about other leaders that everybody admired. So I told a lot of Steve Jobs stories, a lot of Larry Page stories, a lot of Sergey Brin stories, et cetera, et cetera.

24:58And then one of the most common, if you look at Amazon and all the one-star reviews, they say, ah, what a name dropper. How do you establish credibility without seeming arrogant? is that that's i guess my question so i there are a couple ways um if it's live and in person people are listening to your voice tone so the more you assert the other thing people hate about is i have a very high voice but it gets attention yes so if you bring a lot of quote heavy authority and you bring a hint of condescension into a conversation well you've already set yourself up to be seen as that's quite an egotistical character here yes name dropping i've always said if you do drop names, you should only drop one to two at a given time.

26:02Yes. The more you drop four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, we start to say, oh my gosh. The more obnoxious it gets. Yeah. So I worked with a colleague who I won't mention because he was quite famous in my world in the leadership field. And he loved, you know, he'd say, well, I just, I had lunch with Howard Schultz at Starbucks the other day. And I, you know, Bill Clinton and I were invited on a boat trip. And he probably didn't think he was name dropping. He was just describing his day, you know. Yeah. But I think a lot of people felt, oh, my gosh, what an arrogant character. Yeah. So I think, again, voice tone, not dropping too many names.

26:42And again, coming in really as a conversation, I think, is very important. Yeah. Listening, actually, and giving other people the credit for what you're saying is probably the best way to flip it. and also probably moving on to the next step, which is sharing your logic. That is a good way to establish your credibility. But you say something that is very important in the book. The question is what logic is compelling to the other person, not what logic is compelling to you. So talk a little bit about that. Help people figure out how to do that. Okay, so I'll share a story with a young man called Dylan, and it'll introduce two ideas.

27:27One, this idea of getting the right argument, but also introduce the idea of what we call framing. How do you frame why I'm here and why I'm persuading you? So Dylan was the captain of the soccer team at a college, my college actually. And he came to me, he was in my course on leadership and persuasion, And he was also my research assistant. And he came to me one day and he said, hey, Professor Conger, I really need your help. As you know, I'm the captain of the soccer team. And we have a chance this year to win the championship for our division. And the man who's been maintaining our soccer field for more than a decade has retired.

28:10And they haven't brought on a new maintenance company. And so they just have the college's kind of maintenance people gently maintaining the field. And he said there are holes in the field. The grass has been torn. I saw the archery team on there the other day shooting arrows, putting holes all over. And here's my problem. The coaches and I have gone to the key administrator. her and we've tried to persuade her to get a maintenance contract. We tell her that we could win the championship if that field is restored to pristine levels. And she always says to us, I'm going to look into it. I'll be back in touch.

28:57And nothing happens. Nothing happens. So this goes on for a few weeks. So I said, okay, well, I have one question that you need to answer and then I can help you. I want you to go and I want you to find out what her background is. I want you to find out kind of what her specialty is. So two days later, Dylan comes back and says, hey, Professor Conger, her specialty is risk management, risk mitigation. I said, okay, Dylan. I said, no wonder your arguments aren't working. Being the championship might be nice, but her main concern is liabilities and lawsuits. I said, okay, so if you were concerned about liabilities, how would you frame this, and what kind of evidence would you use in arguments?

29:44And he took a moment. He's a really sharp young man. He said, ah, I would frame it around the fact that the college could be sued potentially for injuries, serious injuries of the athletes. And I said, okay, now what kind of evidence could you muster to prove that? He said, well, I've got at least four of my colleagues who have torn various ligaments. One guy tore his ACL, and he's out. He won't be playing anymore. I said, great. How could you present that evidence? He said, well, I could take photographs of their injuries, and I could bring them as a portfolio. I said, Dylan, you're good to go.

30:25I said, okay. So he assembles his frame, which is the field has become a risk for the campus, a liability. And he puts together a very nice kind of scrapbook of photographs of the field and the injured students. And then he goes and meets with the administrator. As I recall, he said to me, I think about 10 or 15 minutes in, she goes, oh, my gosh, I had no idea of what was happening. and she says I am going to make certain we do something about that by I think it was that Friday they'd hired a maintenance company just to focus on restoring the field and within a week or two the field was brought back and it's a really wonderful example of getting the right frame and then the right arguments and evidence and in this case the evidence becomes vivid she's able to see with a name, he would say, you know, this is my colleague Stefan, and here's the injury.

31:29And by the way, he's out for the rest of the semester. And by the way, he was one of our strongest players. And so you have to have, you have to do something. And that story also illustrates the need to build urgency. So as you learn... But not false urgency, like the used car salesman, but real urgency. So when you think about it, in your experience at Google, you were often competing against the status quo, which is don't why do anything? You know, we're fine. And so you have to build this sense that this is an important issue. It needs to be addressed. And we need to address it pretty quickly.

32:06Yeah. And we don't want to put it off to next year or the year after. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think it's that story leads into emotion. Right. because the other thing about those photos is that they weren't merely data, you know, in the story. He told a story about a player who's a good player, and his soccer career, his college soccer career has been dramatically cut short by this bad field. So talk a little bit about emotion and why you need to sort of manage your own emotion and hook into someone else's emotion when we talk about emotion. It's very important. And again, we go back to Aristotle and his notion of pathos.

32:54So I like to say logic informs, emotions motivate. So you're sitting listening to a persuader and you go, yes, I agree with that. That makes sense. I agree with that. But that doesn't lead you to action. And so it's the emotional content that actually energizes you and say, I will not only support that, but I'll help you make it a reality. So the question is, well, how do I use emotions in a way that I'm not being emotional? And that you're not manipulating people, that you're hooking into their... Genuine. Yeah. So they're really kind of, and I'll put them into two different buckets. it's manipulation tends to rely very heavily on generating fears anxieties and anger the more a persuader uses those over and over and over over again the more likely not always but the more likely that there's kind of a manipulative persuasion going on now on the other hand if you are trying to build action, you do need to generate some fear and anxiety because otherwise people won't act.

34:09But if that's what you're feeding people all the time, it starts to be, I would argue, potentially quite manipulative. So you're leveraging emotions that are really built around energizing people to take an action. So there is a sense of this. We need to hurry. There's a sense of urgency. But it usually also has emotions around empowerment, inspiration, these kind of wonderful energy. Compassion in the case of the injuries. It was compassion with those. Empathy. It was the fear of being sued. It was compassion with these players. Yeah. And that's what Julie did so beautifully at Children's Hospital.

34:50Because as the doctors and nurses talked about near misses, they said to themselves, Wow, I could never carry the burden, emotional burden, of knowing a child died under my watch or a child suffered because of the medication mishap. Right. So the question is, well, how do I leverage emotions without being excessively emotional? Yeah, yes. And there are really three ways to do it. One is through powerful stories, which you've referenced multiple times and then a few stories I've shared so far. And the Dylan story is a great example. The second way is by speaking to values. So one of the individuals, he's not in the book, but he's a person I admire greatly, worked for one of the kind of very famous consulting firms in the world.

35:41And he was a terrific change agent. And he came from the outside. And he said one of the core values of this organization is being world class in everything we do. We're going to be the best. as a consulting firm we're going to be better than our clients right and so he was his mission was to transform one of the back office functions and the way he did it is he spoke to the partners and he said we do not have a world class function we have a mediocre function but by the way you have a lot of talented people it's just they're here are all the forces that are keeping them at bay. And what I want to do is make this function world-class.

36:23And he said that really triggered, they began to support him because he spoke to one of the core fundamental values. And then the third thing is to speak to your identity. And again, we could go back to Julie, which is her ability to, the doctors and nurses deeply care for children. And she said, this is an opportunity for us to care for them at a world-class level of safety that nobody else is doing and you will never have to bear the responsibility of thinking you might have contributed to a miss out so those are the three kind of core ways we're also listening to your emotions and kind of what are you conveying so if you're very you think you've got a great idea and we don't hear any enthusiasm passion Yeah, it's not that your emotions don't matter at all, but it's the other people's emotions that you're talking about.

37:17That's right. There was an engineer who I was coaching, and he was trying to get something launched, and he was in charge of accessibility features. And he said, I cared so deeply about this because my mother is hearing impaired. And so, like, I couldn't be more emotional. but the engineers they don't care about it and I said well is this about your emotion or their emotion he's like oh I said what are they feeling and he said they feel stressed and I said okay you've got to tell a story that will that will help them figure out what they're not going to do like because because you're going in so passionate and what they hear is I'm not going to get any sleep for the next three months you know it's a really wonderful example kim really illustrates powerfully yeah and again we're often projecting ourselves out into our decision makers or stakeholders assuming they're like us yes yeah so i think that you have given people a great way to think about persuasion it's dialogue not monologue and it's about logic credibility or credibility first, then logic, then emotion.

38:36Is that the right order? Yes, that's the exact order. And the other thing which I emphasize in the book and explain how to get there is being more problem and opportunity-centric versus solution-centric. Yes. It's really an important point. We do get our egos attached to solutions in a way we don't attach our egos to problems or data. Right? It's interesting. Isn't it? And that creates a dilemma that goes back to the expert dilemma. Roger Borjolo, I got the data. He did have the data. He did present the data. And it was complicated. Well, aside from buying your book, which I recommend that everyone listening to The Persuasive Leader, how can people follow you?

39:25How can people keep in touch with you and get advice from you on how to be persuasive without being manipulative? So LinkedIn is a great place to start. I do have a website where they can also go. And the book is out the first week of November. And it's going to be available on Barnes & Noble, Amazon. So pretty easy. We'll put links in the show notes. Thank you so much, Jay. This was such a great conversation. Kim, thank you. It's a pleasure. And I've been a great admirer of your book. So it's great to be on your show. Thank you. Well, I'm a great admirer of your work. So thanks for coming on.

40:11This podcast is based on the book, Radical Candor, Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity by Kim Scott. The Radical Candor podcast theme music was composed by Cliff Goldmacher. Follow us on LinkedIn, Radical Candor the Company, and visit us on RadicalCandor.com.