Promoting Open Communication

Rick Rubin went on stage in Helsinki the day after my talk. Someone asked how he resolves creative differences with artists. His answer was simple: change the conversation from "I disagree" to "let's build it." Then he shared a story: An artist played him a song. The transition didn't work. Rubin told him so. The artist said, "We'll just cut that part in half." Rubin thought to himself: What a dumb idea. But he didn't say that. He said, "Let's try it." The artist played it. It worked. Rubin is a legend. He's produced everyone from Johnny Cash to Jay-Z. Instead, he bit his tongue and let the artist prove him wrong. The principle: when you make an idea tangible, it stops being the person's idea. It becomes something you can both look at objectively and improve together. Once you build it, the truth is obvious. Here's what this looks like in practice: Your designer wants to change the entire homepage layout. You think it's too risky. Instead of three meetings debating it, you say: "Let's build a prototype and test it with 50 users this week." Your sales team wants to restructure the pricing page. Instead of blocking it because you're worried about conversions, you say: "Let's run it as an A/B test on 20% of traffic for two weeks." Your engineer wants to rebuild a core feature from scratch. You think it's overengineered. But instead of killing it in the planning phase, you say: "Spike it out in three days and show me if the performance gain is real." You're not saying yes to everything. You're saying, "Let's find out." Rubin also said something that stuck with me: "If there's disagreement, I always side with the artist's vision. Because to them, it's their career. To me, it's just one piece of my portfolio." Most leaders think backing down makes them look weak. Rubin knows that siding with the person who has the most at stake makes better work happen. Your job isn't to be right. It's to create the conditions where the best idea wins. Stop debating. Start building. P.S. This insight is from this week's newsletter where I break down why Yamaha dominates while Steinway got sold to private equity: https://lnkd.in/efSqP_9K P.P.S. Access additional research links, the podcast, and the full archive in the first comment 👇 Thank you to Nordic Business Forum!

I just received a public records request for my course syllabus, and it looks like the request came from The Oversight Project (an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation). The stated goal for the records request? To assess UNC Chapel Hill's "institutional compliance with current Executive Orders" that ban DEI. My first response to all this was concern. My second response was frustration. I've done some research in response to all this, and I'd like to share a few things I've learned for those who might face similar requests. (1) At many public universities, syllabi are considered intellectual property. As such, at many schools (mine included) professors are not required to share their syllabi in response to public records requests. My advice is to check what your university policy is prior to complying with requests in advance. (2) Records requests (like the one I received) often seem to imply that professors who teach about DEI topics are "on thin ice"—perhaps bumping up against the border of engaging in unlawful activity. But for most professors, this is categorically false. (3) Professors at public universities have legal rights when it comes to teaching. These legal rights have been affirmed by Supreme Court precedent (see Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 1967), and they exist over and above any institutional protections professors may have at their respective universities. (4) At public universities, you have a legal right to decide how to teach your course and to decide what topics to include. This right extends *even to those who teach about politically sensitive* topic areas. This means that if the study of intersectionality, racial discrimination, sexual identity, stereotyping, prejudice, political movements, or anything else is (a) relevant to your expertise and (b) relevant to your course, you are legally protected when teaching about it. (5) You should also know what you cannot do legally. While you can teach about what you want (provided that it's relevant to your expertise and to the course topic), you cannot: (a) compel students to hold your own political views; (b) discriminate against students because of their political views; or (c) use class time non-educational partisan activity. Ah, and you also can't (d) break other obvious laws, like FERPA. When you look at all of this side by side, I think you're left with a pretty straightforward conclusion: Keep doing the work you were trained to do. Keep educating others. Keep sharing your expertise. And don't let vague references to executive orders make you question whether you have a right to be sharing your knowledge with the world.

The Delhi High Court has ordered Sci-Hub and Libgen to be blocked in India. On paper, this may look like just a copyright decision. But in reality, for thousands of students and researchers especially those pursuing a PhD without any stipend, grant, or funding. This is a direct hit on access to knowledge. Not everyone can afford subscriptions worth thousands of dollars for every paper. Universities too often lack access to many high-impact journals. For many of us, shadow libraries were not a luxury but a survival tool to keep our research alive. Research should not be a privilege only for the well-funded, it should be a collective effort towards knowledge creation. If we truly want to strengthen India's research ecosystem, then affordable and equitable access to scientific literature is non-negotiable. This is not just about Sci-Hub or Libgen. This is about the future of students who dare to pursue research despite financial constraints. Blocking access without offering a viable alternative only widens the gap between privileged and struggling scholars. 🔑 The question is how do we ensure that knowledge remains accessible for everyone, not just the few who can afford it? #Research #PhDLife #HigherEducation #OpenAccess #AcademicFreedom #ResearchFunding #IndiaResearch #PhDStudents #EducationForAll #KnowledgeShouldBeFree #IndianEducationSystem #IndianStudents

Real conversations at work feel rare. Lately, in my work with employees and leaders, I’ve noticed a troubling pattern: real conversations don’t happen. Instead, people get stuck in confrontation, cynicism, or silence. This pattern reminded me of a powerful chart I often use with executives to talk about this. It shows that real conversations—where tough topics are discussed productively—only happen when two things are present: high psychological safety and strong relationships. Too often, teams fall into one of these traps instead: (a) Cynicism (low safety, low relationships)—where skepticism and disengagement take over. (b) Omerta (low safety, high relationships)—where people stay silent to keep the peace. (c) Confrontation (high safety, low relationships)—where people speak up but without trust, so nothing moves forward. There are three practical steps to create real conversations that turn constructive discrepancies into progress: (1) Create a norm of curiosity. Ask, “What am I missing?” instead of assuming you’re right. Curiosity keeps disagreements productive instead of combative. (2) Balance candor with care. Being direct is valuable—but only when paired with genuine respect. People engage when they feel valued, not attacked. (3) Make it safe to challenge ideas. Model the behavior yourself: invite pushback, thank people for disagreeing, and reward those who surface hard truths. When safety is high, people contribute without fear. Where do you see teams getting stuck? What has helped you foster real conversations? #Leadership #PsychologicalSafety #Communication #Trust #Teamwork #Learning #Disagreement

Psychological safety does not mean everyone gets along. It means people can tell the truth without calculating the consequences first. We have been here before. The moment you had something important to say and instead of just saying it, you ran it through a filter first. Will this land badly? Will I be seen as negative? Is this the right room? Is this the right time? Is there even a right time? So you softened it. Or you saved it. Or you said nothing at all and watched the problem you could see coming arrive exactly as predicted. That is not a confidence problem. That is a culture problem. 🌸 It is a soil problem. When people stop speaking up it is not a personality problem. The environment they are planted in has taught them that honesty grows nothing good here. 🌼 It is a roots problem. The real conversations are not happening in meetings. They are happening in group chats and bathroom breaks because the official channels cannot be trusted. 🌺 It is an exposure problem. People have watched what happens to the ones who speak up. They have seen whose concerns get amplified and whose get quietly buried. They made a rational decision. 🌷 It is a nutrients problem. Growth requires the freedom to fail, to question, to challenge. When that freedom is rationed, people stop reaching for it. 🥀 Psychological safety is not a workshop you run once a quarter. It is the daily evidence that telling the truth will not cost you anything here. Through my work transforming workplace cultures globally I have sat with teams who had not had a real conversation in years. Not because they had nothing to say. They had everything to say. The soil they were planted in had taught them that honesty was a risk not worth taking. So they performed agreement. They nodded in meetings and vented in group chats. They saved what was true for the people they actually trusted. The leaders of those teams genuinely believed their people felt safe. They had open door policies. They asked for feedback. They said all the right things in town halls. What they did not realise is that psychological safety is not built in town halls. It is built in the moments after someone speaks up. People are always watching what happens to the ones who tell the truth. That is how they decide whether to tell it themselves. Quiet is not the same as healthy. The organisations that cannot tell the difference will keep calling it a retention problem. It was always a trust problem. I go deeper on this in my debut book Culture Blooming: Nurturing Workplaces Where People Grow, out August 2026. Pre-sale link in the comments. 📙 AA 🌼 We bloom together or we wilt alone™️🌱 ———————————————————— 📙 Pre-order Culture Blooming - link in comments 👀 Read more: Substack link in the comments

We like to think people stay quiet because they don’t have the confidence to speak up. But often, silence is a survival strategy - a rational response to environments where speaking up feels unsafe. Psychological safety doesn’t appear because you’ve told people, ‘This is a safe space.’ It’s built when people know their insight will be received without consequence. Here are a few principles I teach leaders to use when building that kind of culture: - Choose your moment with intent - timing shapes how feedback lands. - Frame your insight as a contribution, not a critique. - Anchor your observations in shared goals, not individual fault. - Use specific, observable examples - “I’ve noticed…” not “You always…” - Signal alliance - “We could strengthen this by…” - Know when to step back, escalate or document. Courage shouldn’t require martyrdom. When people know their voice is valuable, they don’t only speak up, they help your organisation see what it couldn’t before. If you're interested in building a culture that stops silence from taking root, ask us at APS Intelligence about our programmes designed to help teams turn insight into action.

Stop wasting meetings! Too many meetings leave people unheard, disengaged, or overwhelmed. The best teams know that inclusion isn’t accidental—it’s designed. 🔹 Here are 6 simple but powerful practices to transform your meetings: 💡 Silent Brainstorm Before discussion begins, have participants write down their ideas privately (on sticky notes, a shared document, or an online board). This prevents groupthink, ensures introverted team members have space to contribute, and brings out more original ideas. 💡 Perspective Swap Assign participants a different stakeholder’s viewpoint (e.g., a customer, a frontline employee, or an opposing team). Challenge them to argue from that perspective, helping teams step outside their biases and build empathy-driven solutions. 💡 Pause and Reflect Instead of jumping into responses, introduce intentional pauses in the discussion. Give people 30-60 seconds of silence before answering a question or making a decision. This allows for deeper thinking, more thoughtful contributions, and space for those who need time to process. 💡 Step Up/Step Back Before starting, set an expectation: those who usually talk a lot should "step back," and quieter voices should "step up." You can track participation or invite people directly, helping create a more balanced conversation. 💡 What’s Missing? At the end of the discussion, ask: "Whose perspective have we not considered?" This simple question challenges blind spots, uncovers overlooked insights, and reinforces the importance of diverse viewpoints in decision-making. 💡 Constructive Dissent Voting Instead of just asking for agreement, give participants colored cards or digital indicators to show their stance: 🟢 Green – I fully agree 🟡 Yellow – I have concerns/questions 🔴 Red – I disagree Focus discussion on yellow and red responses, ensuring that dissenting voices are explored rather than silenced. This builds a culture where challenging ideas is seen as valuable, not risky. Which one would you like to try in your next meeting?  Let me know in the comments! 🔔 Follow me to learn more about building inclusive, high-performing teams. __________________________ 🌟 Hi there! I’m Susanna, an accredited Fearless Organization Scan Practitioner with 10+ years of experience in workplace inclusion. I help companies build inclusive cultures where diverse, high-performing teams thrive with psychological safety. Let’s unlock your team’s full potential together!

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 👇 A warm afternoon. A lecture in progress. Windows closed — the room feels suffocating. Windows open — drilling noise takes over. Students restless. Professor adjusting his tone. One girl quietly stands up. She walks to the window and says, “Excuse me… we have a little problem. It’s extremely hot when the window is closed, and extremely noisy when it’s open. I was wondering if you could maybe work somewhere else for about 45 minutes?” The worker replies, “Not a problem.” She smiles. “Thank you so much.” Silence returns. The lecture continues. And the professor says, “As you will find in multivariable calculus, there’s often more than one solution to any given problem.” A lesson beyond the syllabus. Here’s what this moment taught me: 👉 𝗤𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽. You don’t need authority to create change. You need clarity and the willingness to step forward. 👉 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿. She didn’t complain or command. She asked — and cooperation followed naturally. 👉 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Heat or noise weren’t the only options. Communication created a third path. 👉 𝗜𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆. One calm action shifted the atmosphere of the entire room. That’s influence in motion. In business and in life, many conflicts aren’t solved by dominance — they’re solved by dialogue. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲? ✍ 📘 𝗠𝘆 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗸 - 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠: https://amzn.in/d/imN8NzX 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄: 𝗞𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗵 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝟭:𝟭 𝗠𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗦𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: https://lnkd.in/gKkBv76G #leadership #mentorship #growthmindset #communication #humanconnection #kalwantsingh #excellingdecisionmaking

Netflix’s Adolescence just pulled back the curtain on something every parent, educator, and mentor needs to know—the hidden language of emojis. Online, young people are communicating in ways that most adults completely miss. What looks innocent could have a much darker meaning. Here are some of the codes being used: 🔴 Red Pill – “I see the truth.” Used in toxic male spaces to mean waking up to supposed hidden ‘truths’ about women and society, often linked to misogynistic ideologies. 🔵 Blue Pill – Represents those who are “blind to the truth” or still believe in mainstream views about relationships and gender dynamics. 💥 Dynamite Emoji – An “exploding red pill,” meaning someone is a radicalised incel. 🫘 Kidney Bean – A symbol linked to incel culture, sometimes mocking women. 💯 100 Emoji – Tied to the “80/20 rule,” the belief that 80% of women are only attracted to 20% of men. ❤️ 💜 💛 💗 🧡 Heart Colours – Not just about love! ❤️ = Love 💜 = Lust 💛 = “Are you interested?” 💗 = Interested but not in sex 🧡 = “You’ll be okay” So what should parents do? 1️⃣ Get Curious, Not Combative – Ask open-ended questions: “I saw something about emojis meaning different things. Have you heard of this?” Keep the conversation light. 2️⃣ Create a Judgment-Free Zone – If your child feels like they’ll be punished for opening up, they won’t. Make it clear you’re there to listen, not just lecture. 3️⃣ Decode Together – Ask them to explain their digital world. What do different symbols mean? Who are the influencers they follow? Don’t assume—ask. 4️⃣ Teach Critical Thinking – Help them question online content. “Why do you think some groups push this idea? Who benefits?” Arm them with questions, not just rules. 5️⃣ Monitor Without Spying – Open conversations work better than secret surveillance. Make checking in on their online spaces a normal part of parenting, not a crisis move. 6️⃣ Be Real About Manipulation – Explain how toxic online groups groom young people by making them feel special, included, or like they have ‘insider knowledge.’ 7️⃣ Build Their Offline Confidence – The more they feel valued and confident in the real world, the less they’ll seek validation in dangerous online spaces. At Manhood Academy Global, we don’t just talk about the dangers—we equip young people and parents to navigate them. 🔥 Start with You Made A Promise – A powerful call to action for parents with children in crisis, reminding them that raising a child is more than survival—it’s a promise that must be kept. 🔥 Then read 22+1 Laws of the Master Teacher – A must-read for anyone mentoring, teaching, or guiding young people. Learn the principles that shape powerful leaders and educators. 📖 Explore more: www.aisle23.etsy.com Because if we do not initiate the child into the village, he will burn it down just to feel the warmth.

Excellent tips here illustrating how a subtle change in tone can have a massive influence upon how your message is received. 1) Acknowledge Delays with Gratitude "Sorry for the late reply…" "Thank you for your patience." 2) Respond Thoughtfully, Not Reactively "This is wrong." "I see your point. Have you considered [trying alternative]?" "Thank you for sharing this—I appreciate your insights." 3) Use Subject Lines That Get to the Point "Update" "Project X: Status Update & Next Steps" 4) Set the Tone with Your First Line "Hey, quick question…" "Hi [Name], I appreciate you. I wanted to ask about…" 5) Show Appreciation, Not Acknowledgment "Noted." "Thank you for sharing this—I appreciate your insights." 6) Frame Feedback Positively "This isn’t good enough." "This is a great start. Let’s refine [specific area] further." 7) Lead with Confidence "Maybe you could take a look…" "We need [specific task] completed by [specific date]." 8) Clarify Priorities Instead of Overloading "We need to do this ASAP!" "Let’s prioritize [specific task] first to meet our deadline." 9) Make Requests Easy to Process "Can you take a look at this?" "Can you review this and share your feedback by [date]?" 10) Be Clear About Next Steps "Let’s figure it out later." "Next steps: I’ll handle X, and you confirm Y by [deadline]." 11) Follow Up with Purpose, Not Pressure "Just checking in again!" "I wanted to follow up on this. Do you need any additional details from me?" 12) Avoid Passive-Aggressive Language "As I mentioned before…" "Just bringing this back in case it got missed."