As a leader, you need to have difficult conversations with your team. Having this ability is crucial to your success. After all, conflicts are inevitable. And you need to be able to address them before it becomes more than you can handle. Sounds easier said than done? Then join Ben Baker as he talks to the Director of Product Marketing of LinkedIn, Sudha Ranganathan, about the fear of having difficult conversations with your team. Learn how to have the emotional intelligence to look at other perspectives. Discover the expectations versus accountability of having difficult conversations. And find out how you can respond to feedback properly. Start practicing having these hard conversations as a leader today!
Listen to the podcast here
Having Difficult Conversations With Sudha Ranganathan
[0:01:47] I have a treat. We brought in the director of product marketing from LinkedIn. Sudha is going to be joining us, but we’re going to talk about something different. We’re going to talk about having difficult conversations, expectations versus accountability. Sudha, welcome to the show. Let’s get into this.
[0:02:06] Thank you for having me.
[0:02:07] It’s my pleasure. We were introduced, I believe, through Raul, weren’t we?
[0:02:11] That’s right.
[0:02:12] Shout out to Raul. He gives me some of my best guests. He’s been amazing lately. He says, “Ben, you have to interview these people.” We have these pre-show interviews. You and I had about a 30-minute conversation. We got to know each other. I want to have you on the show. Let’s start off by letting people know who you are, what you do, why you do it, and then let’s get into expectations and accountability. It’s an extremely important subject, especially in our work environment.
[0:02:43] I am kicked that I am going to be talking about it because it’s a topic that’s fraught. It can be seen as riddled with mines all over the place. It’s something people will try not to touch very much. Those are the topics that intrigued me more than anything. About myself, I’m Sudha. My last name is Ranganathan. I grew up in India, moved to Singapore and lived there for a few years. Later in my life, I moved to the United States. I’ve been here several years now. For most of those years, I’ve worked in technology. I started my career in market research and then over time I realized I wanted to get closer to where decision-making happens. That took me into the world of product marketing.
I love what I do right now. I work at LinkedIn. It’s a company that I advocate for strongly because it’s a phenomenal work culture to be in. I totally believe that we’re changing the lives of people by helping talent find opportunity that is right for them. That’s a little bit about me. Maybe two other things to know.
One, my interest in this concept of difficult conversations comes from two things. Having been a people manager for a long time and realizing a lot of the magic of people management happens when you’re able to broach “difficult conversations” with the equanimity, maturity, and honesty that the other person deserves. When you can have those conversations, you can develop other people in the best way possible without hiding important truths from them.People walk into a conversation knowing where they want it to end. They think their way is the only way, and that's not right. Click To Tweet
The second part of my interest in this comes from the fact that I’m trained as a coach from the Co-Active Training Institute. A lot of what we learned is how to truly listen to our clients, how to get to the root of the real problem, and how not to try and solve people’s problems for them. A lot of that can be taught with difficult conversations that people are willing to have about themselves. This is where a lot of my interest comes from. It’s being a people manager, a team leader, and it’s being a coach on the side. When Ben reached out, I said, “Of all the things to talk about, I’d rather talk about something that fundamentally makes us either thrive or not thrive at work. It’s that ability to face up to difficult conversations.”
[0:04:52] Those difficult conversations are things that most leaders and employees dread. That phone call that came in that says, “Can you come up to the HR office? Can you come to my office? Can you come in a little bit early on Thursday?” We all sit there and go, “I don’t know what this is about. I do know what this is about. I don’t want to have that conversation.” It comes from both sides of the fence. It comes from the leader’s point of view and the employees.
Most leaders are not trained how to have difficult conversations. They’re not given the tools set to be effective at those conversations. A lot of times, they don’t go as well as they should. I’d love to get your thoughts on that because how do we go about having these difficult conversations in a way that doesn’t become adversarial, that enables people to be listened to, understood and valued, and enables for resolution without your pink slips be handed out.
[0:05:54] Number one, you hit on something important. It’s not the art of having difficult conversations. It’s the skill set to have difficult conversations, meaning we’re not born with it. We need to be taught how to do it. That means everybody can learn how to do it. Before I answer how we make these conversations a little less fraught, I want to talk about what makes them fraught. What is the underlying theory of insecurity that we are confronting when we walk into what we think is a difficult conversation?
There are a couple of things. Number one, often difficult conversations come from two parties not agreeing on an issue, AKA seeing the issue from different perspectives, and what can sometimes be different perspectives on a topic or a task, i.e., what we call task conflict. It can get quickly conflated with two people not liking each other, i.e., relationship conflict.
When we conflate task conflict, if we don’t agree on this topic with, we don’t like each other and we’re not going to be work friends anymore because we don’t agree on this topic. That is part of where the fear comes from, is we’re not going to like each other. That’s task versus relationship conflict conflation. That tends to be one root cause of our fear of difficult conversations.
Another big one is our almost irrational attachment to our ideas and our perspectives. It’s the fact that for a lot of us, we walk into a conversation thinking, “I know where I want this to end. I know what the end goal looks like. My way is the only way to get there.” It’s never quite simplistic in people’s minds, but what we’re usually doing is conflating our belief with an absolute truth. Often, our beliefs are such as that. They’re a belief. They’re fueled by our values, our motivations, and our side of the story. When we walk into a conversation getting attached to our belief, it becomes hard to listen with openness and curiosity. That’s a large part of where the difficulty of difficult conversations come from.
Finally, it’s that so much of our identity is wrapped up in work that we conflate what we do with who we are. We start to think, “If this conversation doesn’t go well, it’s a statement on my work as an individual, rather than a statement on something I need to do differently at work.” That can be scary when your identity is threatened.
To me, those are the three things to know. Number one, task versus relationship conflict is at the core of where our fear comes from. Number two, we get attached to our beliefs. We start to think of them as truths rather than hypotheses that we need to test with more information. The third one that I spoke about was we conflate who we are with what we do. When our beliefs are challenged, it feels like our identity is being challenged. That sense that despite those of shame, lack of word, this is where the fear of difficult conversations comes from.
When it’s a manager direct relationship, that is the fear of not being liked by the other person. If you are telling them something they need to hear, that’s not going to be pleasant to hear. We conflate our ability to be like, as people with doing the right thing by another person. When in fact, sometimes they don’t necessarily go hand in hand. You have to say something that’s going to make you unlikable so the other person can hear the truth that they need to hear.
[0:09:08] It’s interesting because I see all three of those things being interrelated. I sit there and go, “Okay.” Every single person comes to the table, whether they are leader and employee, whoever they are, it doesn’t matter if it’s personal relationships or business relationships, we all come to the table with our own set of beliefs. We hold those beliefs to be truths, whether they are or they’re not.
I believe that there’s very little in the world that’s black or white. I believe there are thousands, if not millions of shades of gray. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. What you believe and I believe, neither one of them may be the absolute truth, but those are the ideals that we hold. Where protraction can come into play is that how dare you disagree with what I believe is the truth?
How dare you question me as an individual and my sense of what’s right and wrong? That is a real big problem where we get into the third thing is being liked. If this person doesn’t like, agree, and believe what I believe, then why should I like them? We’re seeing that in politics, business, and in personal now, is that if people sit there and go, “If they don’t believe what I believe, I’m going to ignore them. What they say is invalid and does not have any right to exist because it does not jive with my set of beliefs.” How do we get beyond that? You’re dealing with people’s raw emotions at that point in time. How do we bring them back from that raw, visceral point where it’s us versus them, me versus the world, to the point where they’re willing to listen to each other actively, understand and value each other?
[0:10:51] There are a couple of great fundamentals. The first one is the ability to self-examine before you walk into a difficult conversation and ask yourself, “Why am I going into this conversation? What’s my intention?” If your intention is to prove that you’re right, it’s probably not going to go well.
[0:11:10] We all want to be right.
[0:11:13] If your intention is to get validation to prove that you’re better, all of those are problematic places to anchor your intention. The first question is, “What’s my intention?” If your intention is, “I want to get us further towards a common goal. I want to make sure that this other person walks away with the truths that they need to hear to truly develop and that I have dead development at the core of my intention,” already, you’ve started in a good place. That’s going to guide the way you provide your feedback to them or the way that you disagree with them.When having a conversation, let go of what you believe in for just a moment. Listen to listen, not to respond. Click To Tweet
Step one, intention and getting clear on your intention. Number two, the willingness to be honest with yourself, which means, do you look at your intention and go, “Am I shrouding something self-serving as a noble other serving intention, or what am I willing to call it out for what it is?” The ability to be self-critical almost and to ask yourself, “Am I telling myself the truth, or am I pretending this is about something else altogether?” Clarity of intention, the ability to honestly examine your own intention and positive back to what it is.
Number three, when you walk out of the conversation, this is the most important thing and it has been life-changing for me, even though it’s so simple, it’s to show up with seriously real curiosity. What does that mean? It means you let go of the things you believe in for a moment and you listen not to respond, but you listen to and to take in what this person is saying. I find that a good way to exercise high level curiosity is to test yourself on how much of what the other person is saying you’re absorbing. When you hold that test for yourself, you truly focus on doing the best that you can to listen to them.
I find that not a great way to practice curiosity is to do what I call distilling and playing back when the other person is done speaking. Let’s say they’ve wrapped up saying something for about two minutes, your ability to distill down what they said to the bare bones and to be able to play it back to them verbally does two things.
Number one, it forces you to listen so that you can listen well. Number two, it lets them see that you’re truly listening and you’re paying attention, but also it lets them respond if you haven’t interpreted what they’re saying accurately, and it helps them course correct. Doing all of those things only fuels your sense of curiosity. It can only happen if you can detach from your beliefs for a second, and you can stop listening to respond and listen to truly listen and digest what the other person’s saying.
[0:13:37] It’s funny. This reminds me of a conversation I had with Bryce Hoffman about red team thinking. The whole premise behind that is, “We hold these to be absolute truths, but what if we’re wrong?” Being able to step back and have the emotional intelligence to say, “There may be another way of looking at this. There may be another way of interpreting this. There might be other factors that I’m not aware of that might be at play, other goals, aspirations, fears, wants, needs, desires and challenges that are at play that I’m not aware of yet.”
It’s my job to be curious enough to be able to sit there and go, “I’m not listening to speak, but listening to understand.” Listening to sit there and go, “What is the other person feeling right now? What is the other person needing from me right now? What is the other person’s challenge right now? How do we get on the same page instead of being on the opposite sides of the same table?”
[0:14:44] What you’re talking about earlier, I almost put that onto that category of self-examination. It’s asking yourself the question, “Is this a hypothesis, or is this a proven fact? If it’s not a proven fact, then I need to understand if my hypothesis is true or false to know how closely I can stay attached to my belief system. I don’t know that, but I’m often willing to do that.”
You also said something else that struck me when we would talk about how to listen well during coach training. We were told that there’s level one, listening. You’re listening to respond. Level two listening, you’re truly listening, but you’re listening to other words that are being said. Level three listening gets deep. You’re not just listening to the words that are being said. You’re listening to the feelings that are unsaid. You’re listening for fear, insecurity, concern about something bad, and catastrophizing. When you’re able to listen to all of that together, you can respond so much more intelligently than when you’re just catching the words.
[0:15:41] It’s listening with the whole body. Most people listen with their ears, but are you listening with your eyes? Are you feeling their body tensing up? Are you watching? Are they leaning back? Are they leaning forward? Are their arms crossed? Are they open? What’s the intonation of their speech pattern? Is it fast and aggressive or is it slow and responsive? We need to get beyond just listening to what people say, but how they’re saying it. A lot of people get tripped up with what somebody said. “They said this,” yes, but what was the intention behind that? Let’s get beyond what he said she said to the point of the intention behind the conversation.
[0:16:29] You asked how we make sure we walk into these conversations with the ability to have a good difficult conversation. Those are it. If you have clarity of intention, you’re willing to self-examine whether your beliefs are beliefs of truth. You go in there with your curiosity, full-body listening. I’ve noticed that curiosity is the ability to ask powerful questions that get the other person to tell you truly what is informing their opinion because then you get all the facts on the table and you realize you’re seeing the elephant from the front. You can see the trunk and the ears, but this other person’s looking at the elephant from the back. All they can see are the legs and the tail. No wonder you’re not able to come to the same page until you see each other’s perspectives and realize there’s a full animal there in front of you.
[0:17:14] My friend, Pat Kelahan, uses that. He calls himself the insurance elephant. He says, “What part of the elephant are you seeing?” An elephant is such a huge animal. I don’t know if you’ve ever been in front of an elephant. I have. I’ve been within touching distance of an elephant. I’m 6’2” and 250 pounds. I am small and insignificant next to a fully grown male or female elephant. I’m as tall as one of their legs. You sit there and go, “I’m not seeing the other side of the elephant. I’m not seeing the trunk. I’m not seeing the tail. I’m just seeing this wall of flesh in front of me.”
If that’s my only interpretation, I’m not perceiving what the entire elephant is or what the entire situation is around me. All I am is focused on the two feet in front of me and what I can see it with my own eyes. I love that analogy because it forces us to sit there and say, “Let’s walk around. Let’s take a look at this from a 360 point of view. What are we not seeing within the situation?” That is emotional intelligence. Being able to sit there and say, “There has to be another perspective. They have to be looking at this differently than I am. What are they seeing that I’m not?”
[0:18:31] Let’s take this elephant analogy a little bit further. To me, every difficult conversation has almost two components to it. The first component is when you are absorbing information, getting perspectives, and putting them all on the table so you can finally figure out the real issue between the two of you. That’s the phase that I call information gathering and distilling of perspectives.
We’ve spoken about all of that so far. There’s the second phase, which is the resolution and moving forward. How do you take all that information that you distilled and get to some common ground and next steps moving on from there? How do you get the elephant to now walk in the right direction that you’re both aligned on? That can be interesting.
There are a couple of skillsets that come into play with resolution and next steps. An important one is getting clarity on, are we both seeking the same end goal here. It is perfectly normal to not. If you’re two different functions in the same organization, your incentives require you to optimize for slightly different things. You may not eventually be on the same page, but if you can find common ground, like even between a salesperson and somebody who works in customer success, the common ground is, “I want that customer to get value from our products so that they will want to come back and partner with us in the future.” Finding common ground is the first step of moving forward from resolution because then that can be your guiding light and you’re not stuck around which you can make decisions moving forward.
The second step is the ability to be the clear, succinct, and objective in what you’re saying. To go from articulating openings and judgements to articulating facts, it takes all the subjectivity and attachment to an issue out. It focuses on how do you take that common ground and not start and move it forward from there. That resolution part can be tricky, but the solution is the first step. As you walk through resolution, aligning on common objectives is step one. Number two, then, is being able to articulate clearly and succinctly what you want to do to be able to move those next steps forward.Finding common ground is the first step of moving forward from resolution. Click To Tweet
[0:21:08] I’m going to take that one step forward and bring that into accountability and expectations because I’m a big believer of it’s not just the leaders’ expectations that lead to accountability of the team, but it’s the expectations of the team of their leader that leads to accountability on that part. Both sides need to be accountable and have expectations of the other in order to be able to do that. We need to be able to build that through both people being willing to sit there and say, “What is our end goal? What is the goal that we’re trying to achieve together?”
Let’s sit there and say, “It’s not just us versus them or me versus you. It’s how do we get from being on different sides of that table to being on the same side of the table and looking at a goal objectively and sit there going, ‘How do we sit there and solve a problem?’” That’s a tough thing. How do you deal with that when you’re dealing with people that might be at a different emotional intelligence level, when somebody comes in and they’re angry, bombastic, defensive, hurt, and fearful? How do you get them be on that level of base emotions to a point where you can get them to sit there and say, “Let’s breathe. Let’s take a look at this and let’s figure this out together.”
[0:22:30] It can show up in many different contexts where there’s either an equal power dynamic, two stakeholders from different teams, or where there’s not an equal power dynamic, a team leader with their team. To me personally, it’s a little bit more useful to talk about that latter use case of team leader with their team, because it’s also a lot of the hesitation to provide good feedback and good advice and coaching your team comes from. It’s important to remember that the room has a differential power dynamic.
If you’re the manager, and then you have somebody that reports up to you, and the question you’re asking is, “How do you deal with a situation where you’re trying to coach them on something that’s going to benefit them, but they’re maybe not showing up with the emotional intelligence and the openness that they need to?” One thing you said that that is part of my responses you need to ask them what they’re worried about. What are they afraid is going to happen? Sometimes people catastrophize outcomes in their head, thinking, “This is the highest probability most likely outcome.”
[0:23:23] The worst-case scenario is the only scenario.
[0:23:29] Getting them to be ready to articulate out loud what their fear is gets it out in the open and gives them a chance to expose a vulnerability to you. By inviting that, you’ve also made it clear to them that you understand they’re afraid of something and that there is nothing wrong with it. The elephant in the room makes it obvious. “There’s fear here. Let’s talk about what your fear is. What’s your worst-case scenario here?” That’s helpful. Number two, move on to stake in what was your intention. That is their fear, but your intention coming into the conversation was perhaps to help them succeed at this project or to overcome a blind spot that keeps showing up in their behavioral patterns at work.
Once you articulate the intention, it becomes clear to them that you are invested in their growth and development. Your intent is not to kick them out or to give them a terrible rating. Your intent is to help them grow and develop. Already, you’ve established, “That thing you were afraid of is a low probability scenario. What we’re trying to do is something different.” That’s the first thing.
That, to me, is expectation setting in the conversation. “What were you expecting would happen? What did I expect we wanted coming out of this conversation?” Expectations, intentions, whatever you call that, but importantly, communicating that clearly with each other, so you get on the same page. Now you’ve opened up their mind a little bit by giving them the chance to articulate the fear.
There’s a base-specific framework to use when you’re providing feedback to somebody on what they can do differently. There’s a three-step process. Number one is articulate an observable behavior. “I observed that you did this at that meeting, at this meeting and at this other forum.” You call articulating observer behavior because you have concrete examples showing that the person did something specific.
Step two, call out the impact that behavior has on the business, the individual, or the team around them. “That thing that you did, here’s the impact it had on the business. Here’s the impact it had on our team.” Step three is why we should work on or alter that behavior and here’s probably what the ideal looks like.
That’s the three-step process. Note that we’re being objective. We are calling out things that are observable to everybody. We are not making assumptions about motivations. The most important part of a good feedback conversation is you don’t assume why someone did what they did. You call out what they did, the impact of that, and what the ideal looks like. Now you leave it up to the other person to figure out how they want to go address this add-on.
[0:25:55] That’s interesting because that translates perfectly into the Peter principle. In a lot of cases, in terms of the conversation what you said it’s not what you say. It’s how you say it. You could have that same conversation in a way that diffuses the situation that makes it better, that everybody walks away from the table feeling more engaged, listened to, understood, and valued, or you can have that same conversation in a way that entrenches the situation completely.
The challenge is that a lot of people that have “leadership positions,” whether it’s first-time managers, all the way to directors’ level, vice presidents, are promoted up to the Peter principle, to their highest level of confidence, just because what got you there doesn’t get you here. You don’t build the skills naturally. They’re all skills that you need to learn along the way. Emotional intelligence, effective conversations, listening, empathy all of these are skills that need to be trained and taught and enhanced upon.
My challenge is, is because people are the X factor and because we have a reality where a lot of organizations don’t take the time to invest in teaching people how to have intelligent conversations, are we putting ourselves in a position by not doing that? We’re exasperating situations and we’re making things far more difficult within our own organizations than they need to be.
[0:27:19] What you’re talking about is systemically with an organization is how do we create accountability for leaders to show up this way in difficult conversations rather than look past when they’re not able to operate this way. It’s spot on. Often, we promote people because they’re competent, but not necessarily because they’re emotionally intelligent and savvy at having these sorts of conversations.
The question then becomes, what are the mechanisms to create accountability? One of them is that we reward and penalize leaders, not just for the what, which is what they do, but also for the how. This is an important part of how we do ratings and calibration at LinkedIn. We reward people not just with the results that they delivered but also for how they went about delivering those results.As a leader, evaluate people by the how and not just the what. Click To Tweet
The how does a lot of the values of the company that aren’t just words on paper, the things we evaluate people by. Trust and care, for example, are a big value at LinkedIn. Are you demonstrating trust and care in the way that you show up with your people even through their toughest moments? What are your employee satisfaction scores saying about your people manager abilities?
We take all of those things into account when we decide whether someone moves up the ranks or not because the further up they go, the more profound their impact on the people around them. There’s that much more danger if you’re putting the wrong people into a senior position. A great accountability mechanism is you evaluate people by the how, not just the what. You have concrete ways to measure the how through employee satisfaction scores, values, and whether people are living by those values or not.
[0:29:00] That’s important because there are two different ways of getting things done. One is with a stick and the other one is with a carrot. There are a lot of people out there who only know the stick. “Do it because I told you so.” Yes, they may get the results that they need, but they’re also going to have higher turnover, lower frustration, bigger amounts of disengagement, all sorts of different things that factors that the measurable thing may be maybe taking care of.
It’s all the residual things in the background that probably aren’t being measured that are causing even more chaos in its wake. I agree with you. It’s having that accountability. I love the fact that LinkedIn and other organizations focus as much on the how things were done as what was done. We need to be focused on that as leaders.
[0:29:47] You said something about the carrot and the stick. In my mind, as a bit of a spectrum, there are managers that care but are not willing to lean in and have those stretch or challenge conversations. There are other managers that are willing to challenge but who don’t necessarily care. Somewhere in the middle of those two in the spectrum are the managers who care about you and are willing to challenge how you’re doing something and give you great feedback. That is the sweet spot.
Somewhere between the, “You’re amazing and great. Everything you do is gold. I’m going to be your favorite manager in the world,” and the other end of the spectrum, where I’m always going to tell you what you need to do differently, but not hold space for you and encourage you, in between is the manager that both cares for you. You can witness and feel they care for you, but it’s also willing to challenge and stretch you so that you grow into the best version of yourself. That’s the combination of consideration and courage that our best leaders need to have.
[0:30:47] As I tell leaders all the time, if they want people to love them 100% of the time, just sell ice cream. That’s the only way you’re going to get people to love you all the time. You better have 31 flavors at your disposal.
[0:31:02] Anyway, the moment you start measuring your success by how other people feel about you, it’s a loss because you cannot control how other people feel about you. You can only control the way that you show up with people and whether you have their best interest at heart.
[0:31:16] I want to start bringing this in for a landing, but I want to give you a choice right now. If there’s one thing that we haven’t talked about that’s so important to you that you think that if we miss talking about this through this conversation, it’s going to be a travesty, what would that one thing be? That one lesson to learn.
[0:31:35] There’s a great book by Kim Scott called, Radical Candor. It distills the essence of difficult conversations well. It talks about how to put the development and care of another person at the center of what can feel like a fraught and difficult conversation. The one thing people should walk away with if they want a greater thesis on the subject is they should walk away and get that book, Radical Candor, and read it.
[0:32:01] Radical Candor is a wonderful book. I listened to the audio version of it. It’s a great book. It’s an easy read. It’s one of those books that once you own, you’re probably going to doggy or some pages, put some highlights in there, probably a few sticky notes as well. Somebody who wants to become a leader, it’s a phenomenal book. Two questions and then I’m going to let you go. What’s the best way for people to get in touch with you if they have any questions?
[0:32:31] My LinkedIn is a great way to get in touch with me. You can direct message me on LinkedIn. I’m quite active there.
[0:32:39] The last question that I leave with everybody, as you leave a meeting and you get in your car and you drive away, what’s the one thing you want people to think about you when you’re not in the room?
[0:32:55] How I made them feel when we were in that meeting. Whether we were discussing something easy or difficult, I want them to think about how I made them feel and if there’s any feedback that they’d like to give me so I can do a better job next time.
[0:33:10] We can all improve. It doesn’t matter how old we get or how good we get at what we do. There’s always room to improve. If we can leave people with that thought process, that, “I felt good with and I trusted this person,” that’s an amazing thing.
[0:33:28] By feel, I didn’t necessarily mean they liked me or they were happy. I meant that we handle it in a way that felt respectful, productive, honest and courageous. People are always left with how we make them feel rather than what we say. That feels like an important metric to evaluate myself on.
[0:33:47] Thank you for being such an amazing guest. You have been so insightful. I can’t wait to re-read this because I’m sure there are twenty nuggets in here. As much as I take notes, I probably miss some great things.
[0:34:02] Thank you. Any conversation is only as good as the questions that the host asks, how deep they get, how well they listen. You were so great on all of those. It was such a joy.
[0:34:13] Thank you for all your support.
[0:34:14] Thank you. Have a great day.
About Sudha Ranganathan
Sudha has 15+ years of experience in marketing organizations at companies like P&G, Nielsen, PayPal and is currently the Director of Product Marketing on the Talent Solutions business at LinkedIn where her team helps employers across the world hire and develop strong talent in a new world of work.
She has a strong track record as a leader who develops high performing, psychologically safe teams. She is also a trained CTI (Co-active Training Institute) coach, a trained workshop facilitator and a host for the Wisdom Speaker Series at LinkedIn – all geared to building mindfulness, resilience and emotional intelligence among teams.
Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share! https://yourbrandmarketing.com/yourlivingbrand-live-show/