708: Preparing for a Conversation with Someone You Don’t Trust, with Charles Feltman

Dave Stachowiak [00:00:00]:
Oh, it is a reality of life that we need to interact with some people we’d rather not. And it’s absolutely a reality of leadership that sometimes we need to have a conversation with someone we don’t quite trust. In this episode, how to prepare so that it goes better for both parties. This is Coaching for Leaders episode 708.Production Credit: Produced by Innovate Learning, maximizing human potential.

Dave Stachowiak [00:00:32]:
Greetings to you from Orange County, California. This is Coaching for Leaders, and I’m your host, Dave Stachowiak. Leaders aren’t born, they’re made. And this weekly show helps you discover leadership wisdom through insightful conversations. A uncomfortable conversation that we sometimes need to consider and have is a conversation with someone that we don’t trust or we don’t trust as much as we’d like to. How to prepare for that kind of a conversation is, I think, one of the more challenging things that we experience as leaders today. So pleased to welcome an expert who has done so much wonderful work and thinking on not only how to have a conversation like this, but also the importance and the power of trust.

Dave Stachowiak [00:01:19]:
I’m so pleased to introduce Charles Feldman. He’s the founder of Insight Coaching. He’s had over 25 years of professional experience coaching, facilitating, consulting to, and training people who lead others. He is the author of The Thin Book of Trust: An Essential Primer for Building Trust at Work, now in its 3rd edition. Charles, so glad to have you.

Charles Feldman [00:01:40]:
Thank you, Dave. I am glad to be here and talk with you.

Dave Stachowiak [00:01:44]:
This is a gem of a book, and I love the story behind it because you wrote this book years ago and you put it out in the world. There wasn’t really much of a marketing plan behind it at all, if if any. And you talk about this a bit in the the introduction to this edition. It took off kinda like wildfire, and it’s some of the best books just have merged into the world that way. What do you think, like, all these years later that caused this book to just get so much traction early on?

Charles Feldman [00:02:15]:
Well, what I set out to do in the book was make something, write something that would people would be able to pick up and read and absorb and actually put to use pretty much right away. And in fact, I got a lot of feedback over the years from people who said, yeah, I read your book twice and probably will read it again because it’s a pretty short read. You can typically, if you read reasonably fast, you can read it on a flight between Los Angeles and Chicago, for example, and land at the other end and have something practical that you can do to build trust with the people you’re going to be talking with there. So, yeah, I think really it took off because people found value in it. And when they did, they told other people about it. And that’s how it went from, you know, the first the Q1, I think we our sales were like 300 and some copies. And now when we as we’re moving into the 3rd edition, it sold over a 100000 copies.

Dave Stachowiak [00:03:24]:
That’s incredible. Yeah. What a great story, and what a great example of, like, something so practical. And that’s what really landed for me too is we think about a lot of times the word trust, and we all recognize, I should say everyone. Most of us recognize the importance of trust, and yet it’s it’s a very hard term to define and to get our heads around it. And you do such a wonderful job of, like, bringing a framework around this that helps us to think about it. And that is a good entry point actually into our conversation because, we do many of us find ourselves in situations where we have discovered either in the moment or over time that we are working with someone that we do not trust. And sometimes, a conversation is impractical as I’m sure we’ll talk about.

Dave Stachowiak [00:04:17]:
But a lot of times, it’s helpful to approach that in some way and to figure out what can I do in my role to restore trust? And you’ve got some really great steps on how to do this. In fact, we’re gonna look at 7 of them in this conversation. And you invite us to start by looking at the 4 domains of trust and where you’re concerned. I’m wondering if you could frame that a bit, Charles. What are those 4 domains, and why start?

Charles Feldman [00:04:48]:
here? Yes. Thank you. So trust is not just one big thing, and it’s not binary. Although we know it at some level, we tend to, a lot of people, a lot of us, be included earlier in my career, tend to regard trust as either I trust this person completely or I don’t trust them at all. There’s no middle ground. There’s no continuum of trust from strong trust to strong distrust. So one of the things that I found helpful when I first started working with this framework is that it looks at trust in terms of different ways that we assess someone’s trustworthiness. And I point out 4 domains in which we assess someone’s trustworthiness, or another way to think about it is we assess the risk of trusting them.

Charles Feldman [00:05:45]:
And so the four domains are care, which is to say, I trust that you have my interests in mind as well as your own when you make decisions and take action. You intend good for me. So when I trust you in this way, it allows me to feel safe being with you, working with you, opening up with you, sharing my best thoughts and also sometimes my fears and concerns. So I feel safe to do all of that if I trust that you have my interests in mind as well as your own. You really do care about me. So that’s the domain of care and the assessments that we make in that domain. The second domain that I have of the 4 is what I call sincerity, which really is kind of a combination of honesty and integrity. So if I trust you in the domain of sincerity, what I’m actually saying is that I trust that you’ll be honest with me to the best of your ability, that I can believe what you say, and that you will act with integrity.

Charles Feldman [00:07:04]:
That is your words and actions will match. If you say something to me and, and later on you do something that matches those words. I can say, yeah, I’m glad I trusted you because I see that you in fact are trustworthy in this domain. You walk your talk. So that’s the domain of sincerity. And when I believe someone, when I trust that they act with integrity, I can let down my guard and not have to be always second guessing them or trying to determine, gee, is that is that true? Or, gosh, they said this, but are they gonna do that later on that might undermine my situation? So that’s the domain of sincerity. The domain of reliability is really about keeping the specific commitments or promises that you make. So Dave, I agreed to show up today and record this podcast with you, but, you know, show up at a particular time, ready to go with the right equipment and all of that.

Charles Feldman [00:08:17]:
That was my commitment to you. And by keeping it, I’m demonstrating that you can trust me in the domain of reliability. If, on the other hand, I hadn’t showed up or I didn’t have the right equipment, even though you said, here’s what you need. And I said, yes, I’m ready, then you would begin to, distrust me in the domain of reliability, would rely on me to meet my commitments to you. So then the 4th domain is competence, which is essentially, I trust that you have the skills, expertise, experience, knowledge, resources to do what you’re claiming you can do or say you can do, or that I’m asking you to do. And kind of in that regard, I also would expect that if you don’t, what builds trust in the domain of competence is that you say, you know what? I don’t have this piece of it. I need to learn this or I need help with this or whatever it is. So building trust in the domain of competence is on the one hand showing, demonstrating competence where you are, but also being willing to say, I don’t know this and I need help with it.

Charles Feldman [00:09:37]:
So those are the 4 domains in which we make assessments about other people’s trustworthiness and other people assess our trustworthiness.

Dave Stachowiak [00:09:48]:
I so appreciate you detailing those 4 because I think it, like, gets to the central message of your work in the book, which is and you alluded to this a bit ago of, like, the invitation I hear from you is to be really cautious about thinking about trust as a binary either I trust someone or I don’t and oftentimes that is how we think about and you mentioned you used to think about it that way and inviting us instead to look at these different domains and in particular going into a conversation with someone where trust has become an issue of deciding in advance which of these things are you concerned about. Right? Like, when I say or when I feel like I don’t trust this person, what does that mean? And and and getting clear on that is really key for the start of this, isn’t it?

Charles Feldman [00:10:37]:
Yes. And again, thinking about that, looking at the 4 assessments and deciding, okay. Wait a minute. Let’s see. Is it really that I don’t trust this person at all? Or is it that I can trust them in some of these domains, but not not, you know, not this one or not these 2? Does right away take us out of that binary world of trust fully or don’t trust at all and allows us to think more holistically about what we’re concerned about here.

Dave Stachowiak [00:11:09]:
Yeah. Indeed. And you also suggest that one of these key steps is define the standard that you’re using when you think about whichever domain is the one you’re concerned about. Tell me what you mean by that.

Charles Feldman [00:11:27]:
Well, I’ll use competence because it’s so obvious here. But then we’ll look at another domain as well. I mean, there’s a domain of competence. If someone does something that I feel portrays them as incompetent, and therefore I’m thinking, okay. I can’t trust that person. I can’t trust their competence.

Dave Stachowiak [00:11:49]:
Right.

Charles Feldman [00:11:50]:
One of the first places I might wanna think about and look at is, what’s my standard for competence, and might it be different from their standard for competence? So we often actually you know, we hold our standard as the standard. Right? We’re human after all, and my standard is it. However, other people may have different standards of competence. So let me think about that. Is that possibly what’s going on here? Another domain we can think about that in, let’s say, is sincerity. My standard of transparency and honesty might be different from your standard of transparency and honesty in certain situations. So I may have discovered that you withheld some information from me and may immediately jump to, well, I can’t trust you because you’re withholding information. You’re not being open and honest with me.

Charles Feldman [00:12:52]:
And that’s my standard is that in this situation, in our relationship as you’re my boss and I work for you, but I I expect you to be open and honest with me about a lot of stuff. But you actually might not be even be able to- because of prior commitments to other people around not revealing certain things. You may not even be able to be completely transparent with me in the way that I’m my standard is the level of my standard. So, again, just thinking about that before you get into any kind of a conversation with somebody, thinking about maybe their standard is different from mine, and maybe I ought to keep myself open to that possibility as we move into the conversation.

Dave Stachowiak [00:13:40]:
You write in this part of the book. “Remember, the conversation is about building trust, not about confirming that you are right.” And I think about that, Charles, in the context of what you were just saying of there’s something about looking inward and, like, looking at our own standard first and being willing to examine, like, where might the standards be different? And by doing that through the spirit of, like, how do I come to a place where I can restore more trust with this person versus I’m right, they’re wrong. And it’s a little bit more objective than sometimes the emotion that we first bring into the situation of, oh, I don’t trust someone and just kind of turning it off. It invites us into a place where we can do something practically to actually move this forward.

Charles Feldman [00:14:26]:
Yeah. Exactly.

Dave Stachowiak [00:14:28]:
You invite us next to identify the specific actions or behaviors that have led to distrust. What’s so critical about this?

Charles Feldman [00:14:41]:
It makes it a heck of a lot easier to talk to somebody about trust and distrust when you’re using specific observable behaviors, when you’re talking about behavior as opposed to talking about one’s character. So I don’t trust you can easily be interpreted as a dig at my character. I’m not trustworthy. I’m a bad person. And as you might imagine, as as soon as somebody says something like that, where do people go? Right to the defensive. Wall goes up. I’m not listening to you anymore.

Charles Feldman [00:15:21]:
You’re attacking me and I’m not going to engage. Whereas if the conversation revolves around behavior that I find I may find not trustworthy, but it’s the behavior and it’s a behavior that we can both observe and talk about, then it becomes a conversation that can go somewhere. It disarms the other person when you when you’re talking about behavior. So really taking care to identify the actions and behaviors sets us up for a much more- it sets us up for a conversation that actually might resolve things as opposed to just create more distrust.

Dave Stachowiak [00:16:06]:
Yeah. You’re you’re coming to it from a place of like, okay. Let’s assume if we had a conversation like this that we both are coming to this in good faith. We want to resolve it, and let’s talk about the behaviors versus the character of the person. I think you point out, like, anytime I’ve heard someone say to someone else, oh, I don’t trust you or I don’t trust this person. You sort of think, well, I’m not sure, like, where you even go with that. Like, would you say those words out loud? Like, that’s such a hard thing to recover from. And yet if you’re having a conversation about behaviors, then you can do something with that.

Dave Stachowiak [00:16:40]:
You’re not attacking the other person’s character. You’re saying, hey. Let’s resolve this so that we can get to a place where we really do have great trust with each other.

Charles Feldman [00:16:49]:
Yeah. And I’ve found many times when I work with somebody, when I’m working with a client, and we get to that point and they identify a particular behavior that they found just triggered their distrust And they really start to think about it and look at it. They realize that it’s not as bad as they thought. And by the way, my contention is throughout this that, you know, sort of one of the underpinnings of this book is that maybe 90% of the time, maybe more, percent of the time, when people do things that in the workplace that other people see as untrustworthy, the person doing whatever they’re doing, they’re just doing themselves. They’re acting as they always do. And the other person is being triggered by that and see it as untrustworthy. The the person who’s doing it isn’t intending or even aware most 90% of the time that they’re doing something that someone else sees as untrustworthy. So they’re just doing what they do.

Charles Feldman [00:18:01]:
And so it only gets bad when the person who is interpreting that behavior as untrustworthy then starts distrusting them. And I don’t know about you, but most of us, as soon as we start distrusting someone, we start protecting ourselves. Yep. Right? Because so the behaviors that we engage when we start to protect ourselves can look really untrustworthy to the other person. So suddenly they’re going, wow, I can’t, I can’t trust Charles. He’s he’s doing some weird stuff. And so it it kind of spirals down. But going to the behavior, the behaviors allows us to talk about stuff that we can actually do something about.

Dave Stachowiak [00:18:50]:
Yeah. Yeah. It’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy if we, you know, just identify, okay, trust isn’t there, and then you start changing your own behavior in that way too. And that’s where I think this is really powerful. Again, getting back to that, like, not thinking about this as a binary is part of this is the language and the restoring trust with the other person, but also part of this is just mindset for ourselves. Even if we never had a conversation about this, there’s something really powerful about thinking about our relationships with others and not thinking about this anymore as a trust or not trust on or off of thinking about this more from a behavioral standpoint of, okay, what are the behaviors that I’m experiencing that are causing me to feel that way? And what may I do or not do to address that? And that’s boy, that’s just so much more helpful of not putting people and relationships into boxes. To your point, Charles, that most of the time, people don’t really intend. And so how can we just utilize this as a mindset to just think better?

Charles Feldman [00:19:54]:
Yeah. Exactly. It’s very rare that somebody gets up in the morning and says to themselves, I’m gonna go and destroy somebody’s trust in me.

Dave Stachowiak [00:20:03]:
Yeah. Indeed. You invite us also to consider how we may be contributing to the situation. And I sense that there’s a distinction here from what we talked about earlier, which is to define the standard we’re using. Right? Doing that, as we’ve mentioned, is key. What’s the distinction on stepping back and thinking about how I, as an individual, may be contributing?

Charles Feldman [00:20:27]:
Yeah. A the saying goes, it takes 2 to tango. And so what is it? What’s my role? What’s my part in this? Have I started behaving in a way in order to protect myself because I am suspicious of this other person and now it’s gotten worse because of that? Is my concern about the other person keeping their commitments to me and how well am I making my requests? How clear am I in asking for what I want so that the other person can actually deliver it If I’m not being clear in my ask, in my request, it’s hard for the other person to know. They’re not mind readers, of course. Most of us aren’t. So it’s hard for that other person to know what it is I’m expecting them to deliver. And so is my part of my part in this that I’m not making clear requests of the other person? Am I unconsciously doing something? Let let’s say the other person as I was working with a client and his concern was that he couldn’t trust one of his direct reports to put together a presentation to top leadership, the the executive leadership that was going to work for them.

Dave Stachowiak [00:21:50]:
Uh-huh.

Charles Feldman [00:21:51]:
Right? So that’s the behavior that he didn’t trust. And his claim was that he tried over and over again to show me the right way. I’m fine. I’ll put myself in the role of the person who can’t do that presentation well. You know, he’s tried to show me over and over again the right way to do it. And in this step, working with this particular individual, what he actually came to is that he had done it a couple of times. He’d made a couple of times. He’d said, here, here’s how I want you to do this and showed his direct report what it should look like at the end.

Charles Feldman [00:22:28]:
But what he didn’t do was help his direct report think through how to put that together. And so in that moment, he realized that his contribution to the problem, part of his contribution to the problem anyway, was not really taking the time to help his direct report understand what to do, how to do what he was asking him to do. So he didn’t even bother actually having the conversation. He just started doing that whole thing differently. He spent started spending time with the direct report to walk him through the process, not telling him what to do, but rather asking him questions. And so what what do you think about this? And he said it totally changed the whole thing.

Dave Stachowiak [00:23:18]:
Oh, interesting. And and interesting also that he never even had to have the conversation because it was about his contribution. And I think you know so much of these tough situations when something’s not working like there is always contribution on both sides. Right? And just stopping to recognize that. Like, sometimes the contribution is 95-5. Right? Like, it’s really one person’s issue more so. And sometimes it’s 60-40, and sometimes it’s 99-1. But there’s always something that it it’s worth at least asking the question of ourselves.

Dave Stachowiak [00:23:53]:
Like, where am I contributing in some way to this even if I’m not contributing in a big way? Because we end up seeing things sometimes that we didn’t see otherwise, and we go a different route than having a a conversation that may or may not have resolved it.

Charles Feldman [00:24:06]:
Yeah. The other thing it does is if we’re really honest with ourselves about that in this step, it gives us a bit of humility. So we’re not going into the conversation guns blazing. You’re all wrong. I’m all right. You gotta change. You gotta fix this. But rather, oh, okay.

Charles Feldman [00:24:27]:
I can see a few things where I might have could do something different as well. And also, I might then be tend to be more open in the conversation itself to listening when the other person may point out stuff that I’m doing that I hadn’t even thought of.

Dave Stachowiak [00:24:43]:
I think oftentimes we recognize that there’s a need for a difficult conversation either about trust or whatever, given someone tough feedback, whatever it is. And we recognize the need for a difficult conversation, but we don’t necessarily stop to think, what do I actually want the outcome of this conversation to be? And that’s why I so appreciate one of the key steps here, which is what do you need from the other person to regain trust? And if you are gonna have a conversation like identifying in advance, what that is really key, isn’t it?

Charles Feldman [00:25:17]:
Yeah. Yeah. If you go into the conversation without taking this step without really thinking about what is success in this conversation or what’s the outcome I really want, you won’t know when you get there. And so the conversation may just meander, circle, it certainly is not likely that you’ll get there. So thinking about that ahead of time. Now that may change in the conversation itself as you talk with somebody. Every conversation that we have is a two way street. It’s a dance, and you both start out in one position and you both take some steps and you’re both in a different place, when the music stops.

Charles Feldman [00:26:00]:
But if you don’t know where you’re heading in general in the first place, it makes it really difficult to have a conversation that will actually get close if not fully there.

Dave Stachowiak [00:26:15]:
There’s two final questions that you suggest we ask ourselves and the other person too if we’re gonna have a conversation like this. And the questions are, are you willing to discuss this? Like, you as the person who’s bringing the situation and also is the other person willing? What is it that’s important about these questions and how we frame them?

Charles Feldman [00:26:38]:
Well, a lot of times, I’ll be working with a client around this, and we’ll go through these steps. And I’ll ask, okay. Are you willing to do this? Do you think you’re prepared and are willing to do this? And I was like, I don’t, no. I don’t, this sounds like it’s terrifying to me to have this conversation, especially if it’s with someone who is thinking about having such a conversation with their boss or some other person who has authority and power over them. However, I invite people to think about that in terms of what might they lose by having the conversation And what really what might you lose? And maybe it’s a career limiting move to do it. So maybe you don’t have it based on that alone. But think about it. Is that really true? What will you lose by continuing to distrust this person? And often that the thought of that is also really devastating.

Charles Feldman [00:27:37]:
It’s like, God, I can’t go on like this. I can’t go on in this environment. It’s really creating anxiety, and and I’m getting kind of depressed. And, jeez, this is no good. And then the last question, how would it benefit you and your team and your company to work this out so that you can trust the other person? What’s the larger benefit? So I invite people to really consider all three of those questions before they actually make a decision to jump in and go forward with the conversation or not. Because if they’re not really willing to put themselves on the line around what they might lose, then they could lose heart in the middle of the conversation, and that makes it worse.

Dave Stachowiak [00:28:24]:
Yeah. Yeah. Indeed. And then there’s the aspect of is the other person willing. And I’m guessing that this changes a bit depending on is this person a customer, a peer, a manager, a direct report. There’s different versions of how this looks, but but you do invite us to think through that. And what’s what’s powerful about that?

Charles Feldman [00:28:49]:
Well, yeah, that any kind of of crucial conversation, it shouldn’t be done on the fly or, off handedly. So preparing yourself and also at least beginning to prepare the other person. This is a this is an important conversation that I wanna have with you. It means a lot to me. I’d like to do it at a time and in a place where you can we can be fully present, where we’re not gonna be interrupted. Would that be okay with you? Okay. You know? And then, of course, the first person the first thing that the other person is gonna ask is, what is this about? And so that’s that’s kind of a tricky one to get around because you don’t necessarily want to dig into it right then because that again, it’s not the right time. Right? You know, you are having a conversation about having the conversation.

Charles Feldman [00:29:44]:
And so being able to say, well, I’d I’d like to actually bring that up in the conversation that we have. It’s not earth shattering. It’s not the end of the world. It’s just something that’s important to me, and I’d like to bring it up to you when we’re both ready. Is that alright with you? Would that be alright? And what would be a good time for you and a, a place would work for you where you’re not gonna be distracted and, able to really focus?

Dave Stachowiak [00:30:12]:
Yeah. So you’re you’re signaling the importance of a conversation. You’re also signaling, okay. I recognize this exact moment may not be the right time to have it. What is the right moment? Is it later today? Is it tomorrow? That kind of a thing. But but it is important regardless.

Charles Feldman [00:30:26]:
Yes. Absolutely.

Dave Stachowiak [00:30:27]:
There’s so much in this framework, Charles, that’s so helpful for me in thinking about, like, entering into conversations. Like, we all run into this in our careers of we have that feeling like, oh, I don’t trust this person. And coming back to the mindset of where what does that really mean? Right? Which of these domains does that really mean? Is it a competence thing? Is it care? Like, what is the thing that is going on identifying the behaviors and then thinking through, like, our contribution on this? So powerful. And you go on in the book. By the way, we’re covering, like, 2 pages in the book. I mean, it’s there’s so much more of of, like, how to actually when you’re in the conversation, how to have it. And to your point, it’s such a short read. You can, you know, in a couple hours, I think, easily really grab the full framework for this.

Dave Stachowiak [00:31:16]:
So I hope folks will grab the book if you’d like to dive in more, really get into the depth of the 4 domains. It’s it’s such a powerful way to think about this. And I do wanna ask you one other question, Charles. You know, this is the 3rd edition of the book. And as we’ve talked about, it’s been so helpful to people. It kinda spread, like, on its own through word-of-mouth. As you’re now years into this work and having refined this model, I’m curious, like, especially when you think about the steps before a conversation, getting into a conversation like this, what, if anything, have you changed your mind on over the years on how how to do this better?

Charles Feldman [00:31:50]:
I think so in the first edition of the book, I did not have the step about thinking about your own contribution to the problem. I skipped over that step. And then as I began work, not began, but it got, but I’d been doing it for a while and I was like working with some clients and talking about it and it became obvious that it was missing to me.

Charles Feldman [00:32:17]:
So when when I did the 2nd edition of the book, I put that in. So it wasn’t something that I’ve changed my mind on. It’s just that I realized that I omitted something that was really important.

Dave Stachowiak [00:32:27]:
Charles Feltman is the author of The Thin Book of Trust, an essential primer for building trust at work. Charles, thank you so much for your work.

Charles Feldman [00:32:36]:
Thank you, Dave.

Dave Stachowiak [00:32:43]:
If this conversation was helpful to you, 3 related episodes I’d also recommend. Episode 637 is the first one. How to handle pushback from difficult askers. Vanessa Patrick was my guest on that episode. We talked about the situation that we all run into in our work that we have a stakeholder or a senior person or a customer that asks tough questions that makes demands of us sometimes that seem unreasonable. And how do we handle those situations well? How do we listen well? How do we push back sometimes? And how do we handle the artful politics of those situations too? Episode 6 37. If you’re finding yourself in that situation a bit with someone right now, a great starting point for you. Also recommended episode 655, how to help difficult conversations go better.

Dave Stachowiak [00:33:36]:
Sheila Heen was my guest on that episode, one of the co authors of the iconic bestseller, difficult conversations. So many wonderful lessons from that book. A great compliment to this conversation, of course. And we talked in that episode, how do we start with the mindset and also the tactics on any conversation that we don’t want to have, which is how they define a difficult conversation. Episode 655 for that. And then finally, I’d recommend episode 676, How to change people’s minds? Michael McQueen was my guest on that episode, and we talked about the reality that many of us do face in leadership is we do need to influence people. Maybe it’s our team. Maybe it’s stakeholders.

Dave Stachowiak [00:34:15]:
Maybe it is a client or a donor to think a little differently about something. And how do we actually go about that in a way that’s productive, helpful, and also honors the other person well? Episode 676, where to begin there. All of those episodes you can find on the coachingforleaders.com website. And I had a hard time just limit it down to 3 related episodes here because there are so many conversations we’ve had on the podcast over the years about difficult conversations, about handling a situation where the other party is coming at us with something that’s challenging. There’s so many of those conversations we’ve had on the podcast over the years. 2 of the areas that I’d encourage you to look in inside the free membership in our episode library is the topic area around conversations, how to have conversations better generally, which, of course, we’re all doing each day. And then specifically, difficult situations. When they come up, how do we address those so many conversations about that inside of the episode library? And it’s one of the benefits inside of your free membership.

Dave Stachowiak [00:35:20]:
When you log into the website, just go over to the episode library. You’ll see the drop down to search for the dozens and dozens of different topic areas in addition to that, so many other places. So you can find what’s relevant to you right now of everything that I’ve aired in the, podcast since 2011. And if you haven’t yet set up your free membership, then I’m inviting you to do that today. Just go over to coachingforleaders.com. Set up your free membership right there on the homepage. You’ll be off and running in just a few moments, and you’ll have full access to that entire library, plus so much more inside the free membership, including the weekly guide, which comes each week with the notes, episode information, and also so many of the other resources I’ve been finding for you. Just go over to coachingforleaders.com to set up your free membership.

Dave Stachowiak [00:36:06]:
And if you have done that already and you’ve been utilizing the free membership, then I’d encourage you to find out about Coaching for Leaders Plus. Every single week, I am writing a journal entry and sending it out to all of our members of Coaching for Leaders Plus. And just this week, I wrote about a tough client situation I ran into many years ago where we thought we were on a great path with a client, my partner and I, that we were, working on a project. And it turned out we had missed something big. And in retrospect, it was something obvious. Sometimes we get so close to something that we forget to connect the dots. I talked about that in a recent journal entry. It is part of Coaching for Leaders Plus.

Dave Stachowiak [00:36:48]:
You can access it and all the other benefits of Coaching for Leaders Plus just by going over to coaching for leaders dot plus for more information. Coaching for leaders is edited by Andrew Kroeger. Production support is provided by Sierra Priest. This coming Monday, I’m glad to welcome Keith Ferrazzi back to the show. He is returning to the podcast to help us to begin to lead a team that coaches each other and holds each other accountable. Join me for that conversation with Keith. Have a great week, and see you back on Monday.