Roger: Hey everyone, welcome back to the show! Today, we're tackling a topic that, honestly, affects so many of us: workplace injustice. Patricia, I'm curious, have you ever witnessed a colleague getting passed over or treated unfairly simply because they didn't quite “fit in?” Patricia: Roger, sadly, yeah. It's not always some huge scandal, right? It's often those little things that add up – those unconscious biases, that unequal treatment... But the real question is, what can we do about it? Are we just supposed to sit back and watch? Roger: That's where Kim Scott's book, “Just Work”, comes in. It's not your typical business book fluff. Scott gets to the core of workplace issues like bias, bullying, and even systemic injustice. And the cool thing is, she doesn’t just point fingers; she provides actionable solutions for everyone involved – whether you're the one experiencing the injustice, a manager, a bystander, or, yes, even the person causing the harm. Patricia: So, hang on, she's not just calling out bad behavior, but giving us actual ways to fix it? That almost sounds too good to be true. Roger: That's right! And here's what we're going to cover today: First, we’ll break down the problem, exposing those dynamics that fuel injustice. Then, we’ll delve into Scott's strategies on how individuals can address bias and harassment head-on. And finally, we'll zoom out and examine how organizations can redesign their systems. I mean, how can we make fairness not just an afterthought, but really bake it into the foundation of the company? Patricia: Wow, workplace injustice is a tangled web. But it sounds like Scott is giving us a guide, a step-by-step approach, to not just recognize injustice, but to rebuild the entire system. Roger: Absolutely! Let's dive in and see how we can all contribute to making our workplaces more fair, inclusive, and accountable.

Patricia: Okay, Roger, so we’re laying the groundwork here—understanding the roots of workplace injustice. I hope this roadmap is solid because this is where most efforts tend to fall apart, right? Everyone knows bias, prejudice, and bullying exist, but actually getting to the bottom of it? That's a whole other ballgame. Roger: Absolutely, Patricia, and that's why I think Scott's approach of separating bias, prejudice, and bullying is so effective. Combining them would “really” gloss over just how complex these issues are. So, let's start with bias. It's that unconscious thing that quietly influences decisions, often without us even realizing it. Think about those studies where identical resumes with different names—like, "John" versus "Jamal"—get drastically different ratings, you know? Patricia: Right, I've seen that. Pretty shocking. But you said "unconscious"? Does that mean we're all just biased by default and can't “really” do anything about it? Feels a bit like we're walking around with hidden agendas in our brains. Roger: Well, in a way, yes. Bias functions like these mental shortcuts—almost like pre-set templates shaped by societal stereotypes. The tricky thing is, they’re so ingrained they often feel like rational judgment. So, someone might unconsciously link “John” with competence and “Jamal” with less capability, even if they think they make impartial judgments. Patricia: So, this person genuinely believes they're making a "logical" decision, when “really”, their brain is just taking shortcuts? Wonderful. Besides unfair hiring, what's the “real” harm here? Roger: The harm builds up. Companies consistently miss out on talent because of these snap judgments, and those affected start to doubt themselves. Scott talks about how this gradually undermines confidence, causing self-doubt. Imagine being labeled "too aggressive" for something male colleagues are praised as "assertive" for. It’s a psychological burden that impacts productivity and creativity. Patricia: Alright, so folks are internalizing the bias against them, but what's the solution? Don't tell me "awareness training," Roger, because you know those usually end up with people rolling their eyes and thinking, "This doesn't apply to me." Roger: I hear you, Patricia, but Scott isn’t suggesting the usual, empty workshops. She's advocating for actionable awareness. Imagine employees sharing their personal stories of bias. That forces others to see how their unconscious assumptions might be affecting their coworkers. It’s about building empathy, and it’s a good place to start. Patricia: I'll concede that storytelling could potentially open some eyes. But let’s amp it up a bit—prejudice. Now this is more deliberate, right? It’s not lurking in the background like bias, is it? Roger: Exactly. Prejudice is a conscious belief—actually thinking less of a colleague because of their race, gender, background, you name it. For example, imagine a manager who ignores a female engineer’s ideas but praises a man for saying the exact same thing. That’s not bias; that’s straight-up prejudice. It destroys trust and morale. Patricia: Right, nothing vague about that. What's the cost beyond the obvious anger and hurt? How far does this ripple effect go? Roger: It's massive. Prejudice isolates entire groups, which ramps up stress and “really” shuts down collaboration. People start leaving environments where they feel devalued. Scott emphasizes that this unchecked prejudice doesn't just hurt individuals; it breaks down team dynamics and can “really” mess up long-term stability for the whole organization. Patricia: Yeah, that makes sense. Trust goes out the window, turnover shoots up. And Scott's fix here? Policies, right? Like, some kind of hard-and-fast system to keep prejudice in check? Roger: Absolutely. Policies are crucial, but they have to have teeth. Clear consequences for discrimination, plus incentives for treating people equitably. Think behavioral expectations factored into performance reviews, or anonymous ways for employees to safely report prejudice without worrying about getting punished for it. Patricia: Okay, so, policies can help clean up some of the damage. But let's talk about the worst one—bullying. This isn’t unconscious or accidental—it's intended to cause harm, right? Roger: That's right, Patricia, and it’s important to differentiate it from simple conflict. Bullying is malicious and repetitive—a power play to demean or undermine someone. One example Scott gives is a manager who consistently interrupts an employee, publicly dismisses their contributions in meetings, and excludes them from important team decisions. The goal is clearly to undermine their credibility and confidence. Patricia: That sounds awful. I don’t get why companies let this happen. Wouldn't bullying just kill team morale and, you know, hurt the bottom line? Roger: It absolutely does, but a lot of workplaces still put up with it, often because the bullies are high performers. Leaders might choose to ignore it if the bully is still getting results—even if they’re wrecking the team in the process. Scott points out that it “really” highlight short-sightedness, where organizations prioritize metrics over their people, which can lead to a toxic culture. Patricia: So how do we fix this? Surely, the answer isn’t just, “Fire all bullies immediately” and call it a day, is it? Roger: Of course not. The solution needs to start with clearly defining the difference between legitimate conflict—which helps develop ideas—and bullying, which shuts them down. Organizations need to have very clear anti-bullying policies and training to help employees recognize the difference. It’s “really” about raising awareness and empowering teams to step up. Patricia: Alright, Roger, you've covered bias, prejudice, and bullying, but there's one important piece missing. What about the victims? How do people even survive in environments like this? Is it even possible? Roger: That's the heartbreaking part, Patricia. A lot of them stay silent to protect themselves. Audre Lorde’s quote, “Your silence will not protect you,” “really” hits home—staying quiet might feel safer in the moment, but it doesn’t stop the harm. Over time, this silence takes a huge toll, and can show up as ongoing stress, anxiety, or burnout. Patricia: So, you get targeted by bias or bullying and then end up too burned out to actually stand up for yourself? That’s a killer cycle. Roger: It “really” is. But Scott believes that cycle can be broken through trust. Leaders need to show vulnerability—to openly talk about their own biases or mistakes—and create genuine safety for employees to share their experiences without fear of backlash. Giving rewards for speaking up and having “really” strong protections against retaliation are both essential. Patricia: Alright, Roger, so the takeaway here is being aware and holding people accountable at every level. You need to get employees to open up, get leaders to step up, and get rid of the silence that’s just keeping everyone stuck. Roger: Exactly. And with strong systems for reporting issues and clear expectations around behavior, workplaces can create environments where everyone feels seen and valued. And the first step? Recognizing the problem and how it shows up through bias, prejudice, and bullying. Then, and only then, can you “really” make progress toward finding solutions.

Roger: So, having identified all these injustices, the conversation naturally moves to how we—as individuals and organizations—can actually “respond” effectively. And this is where Scott's genius shines, I think. She lays out role-specific strategies. Not just theory, but real, actionable steps for everyone involved: those harmed, bystanders, those causing harm, and especially leaders. Patricia: Role-specific, huh? So we're not just getting that vague "we should all be nicer people" stuff? Roger: Exactly! This part is all about solutions, emphasizing practical actions tailored to each role. And it starts, of course, with those directly affected. Patricia: Alright, I like that. So, if you're the one being targeted, what's Scott's advice for not getting completely crushed, while still keeping some semblance of sanity? Roger: Well, first and foremost, she emphasizes self-care. Which sounds obvious, but workplace harm really takes a toll. She gives the example of someone who faced discrimination and found clarity and resilience through journaling. They documented their feelings, to process things, but also to prepare to advocate for themselves later. Patricia: Journaling? Really? Like, that's the big tool? Sure, it's reflective, but does it actually change anything at work? Roger: It's more powerful than it sounds. By writing things down, people can organize their thoughts and feel less alone. And beyond that, documentation is key for confronting injustice. Scott tells a story about someone who was constantly dealing with microaggressions—like having their work stolen or dismissed. By keeping a detailed record, they built undeniable evidence and presented it to leadership. It led to real accountability and changed the team's behavior. Patricia: Okay, so self-care is step one, documenting the nonsense is step two. But what if speaking up feels like signing your own death warrant? Roger: That fear is understandable, but Scott encourages setting boundaries to reclaim your power. For example, imagine someone constantly interrupted in meetings. Instead of letting it go, they could calmly say, "I wasn't finished speaking. Please let me finish." It's small, but those boundaries build respect over time. Patricia: Okay, fair. But some people just freeze in those moments or fear retaliation. What about them? Roger: That's where collective culture comes in. Scott highlights the need for environments where speaking up is supported, not punished. Sharing stories can turn individual pain into a unified force for change. Patricia: Alright, I'm convinced individuals can do something. But let's be real, it's not always their job to fix everything. What about the bystanders? You know, the ones who see it happening but don't know what to do? Roger: That's the next level! Scott's big idea is the "5 D Approach" for bystander intervention: Direct, Distract, Delegate, Delay, and Document. Patricia: Five options? Sounds like a buffet of courage. Run me through them. Roger: Let’s start with Direct. This means confronting the behavior head-on. One example is a guy in a liberal office whose colleagues were always making jokes at his expense. A bystander finally stepped in and said, "Hey, this probably doesn't feel too good for Calvin." Simple, direct, and effective. Patricia: Got it—say something, but nicely. What about Distract? Roger: Distract is perfect for volatile situations. You're redirecting things to diffuse tension. If someone's being unfairly criticized, you could jump in with a question or change the subject. It buys time without making things worse. Patricia: And Delegate? I'm guessing that's getting someone else to handle it? Roger: Exactly. If you can't intervene yourself, you can escalate it to someone with authority. Scott mentions a case where a bystander reported verbal bullying to management, which not only solved the immediate problem but led to stronger company policies. Patricia: Pretty practical, I admit. Alright, what's next on the list? Roger: Delay. This means following up later if you can't step in right away. For example, after witnessing an inappropriate comment at a conference, a bystander pulled the victim aside to acknowledge what happened and offer support. That can mean a lot to someone who felt ignored. Patricia: And finally, Document—that one seems obvious. Roger: True, but it's often overlooked. Records, emails, even small notes can have a huge impact when proving patterns of behavior or holding people accountable. Documentation makes sure the issue isn't dismissed or forgotten. Patricia: Okay, the 5 Ds are solid. But doesn't stepping in sometimes backfire? You mean well, but you make things worse? Roger: Exactly! Upstanders need to act with empathy and intention. Scott warns against moral grandstanding—intervening in ways that embarrass the victim. It's not about being a hero; it's about supporting the person who was harmed. Patricia: Okay, so we've got tools for victims and bystanders. What about the perpetrators? If someone's causing harm—intentionally or not—what does Scott suggest? Roger: She's actually pretty optimistic about this group. The key is self-reflection. Scott stresses listening to feedback without getting defensive. She shares a story of a senior leader who made gendered jokes. When a junior employee called them out, they chose to listen, reflect, and change—even if it stung their ego at first. Patricia: Refreshing, I guess. But how often does someone actually take criticism instead of just getting defensive? Roger: Not often enough, but that's why Scott emphasizes sincere apologies first. Not those "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies. Real apologies that admit harm, show you understand the impact, and commit to doing better. Patricia: So, it's not just confessing but continuously improving yourself, right? Roger: Exactly! And when those who cause harm actively work on reflecting and growing, it can strengthen relationships and build trust. Patricia: Alright, now we're talking leaders. How do they take responsibility for turning these ideas into real change? Roger: Leaders need to go beyond just damage control. They set the whole tone. Scott says accountability starts at the top. Policies against discrimination and bullying are essential, but they need teeth. Like including equity metrics in performance reviews or creating anonymous reporting systems for whistleblowers. Patricia: Sounds good on paper. But how do we get leaders to actually practice what they preach? Roger: Transparency is key. Scott shares an example of a VP who admitted their failure to address discrimination in their department. By owning that openly, they showed employees that even leaders are accountable and can grow. That kind of humility builds trust and inspires others to follow suit. Patricia: Alright, Roger, I'll give Scott credit. It's rare to find a strategy that combines individual action with organizational change so well. Roger: It really is. These strategies tackle the harm and rebuild fairness and trust from the ground up.

Roger: So with those strategies in place, the focus really shifts to the bigger picture—the cultural transformation needed for lasting change. And that’s when we need to talk about building truly just work environments. It’s not just about what individuals do, but about creating systems and cultures where fairness is just the default setting. Patricia: Ah, so we’re moving up a level now, huh? From individuals reacting to injustice to entire organizations reshaping themselves. I’m guessing this is where Scott gets into the deeper structural stuff—the kind of changes that go way beyond those HR team-building exercises. Roger: Exactly. We’re talking systemic transformation here. Scott dives into things like institutional courage, data-driven equity, and really redistributing power dynamics in a way that puts inclusivity and transparency first. Patricia: Institutional courage… I like the sound of that. But that's a real game changer, what exactly does it mean in this context? Roger: Oh, it's anything but a slogan, Patricia. Institutional courage is about organizations committing to accountability and transparency, even when it gets uncomfortable. A prime example Scott gives is getting rid of NDAs in cases of harassment or discrimination. NDAs often silence victims, right? But that just keeps the harm going by protecting the people doing the harm. Patricia: Finally, someone's saying it! NDAs are like those tiny band-aids you put on huge wounds. Companies are all, “Let’s protect our reputation,” while the core problem is just allowed to fester. But getting rid of NDAs? That sounds like a potential legal nightmare for some businesses. Roger: It does introduce risk for sure, but Scott argues that the cost of doing nothing—lawsuits, employee turnover, damaged reputations—is even higher. For example, she shares the story of an employee, Madeline, who faced harassment but didn’t get any support from leadership. When it escalated to legal action, the organization lost more than money; they lost trust. If they'd shown institutional courage—acknowledged the issue, held the harasser responsible—they could have avoided the whole mess. Patricia: So, courage pays off in the long run. Still, most leaders won’t take those kinds of bold steps without seeing the data, right? How do you “prove” a workplace has issues in the first place? Roger: Exactly, Patricia. That’s why data is so important to this transformation. Scott really pushes for anonymous climate surveys as a way to hold up a mirror to workplace culture. Employees can share honest feedback about systemic issues—discrimination, pay gaps, inequities—in a safe way. Patricia: Anonymous surveys… kind of like emotional confession booths for workplaces, huh? But how do you make sure they actually lead to change instead of just giving leaders a list of stuff they can ignore? Roger: Yes, that's the key. You can't just collect data, you have to act on it. Transparency is crucial, like publicly sharing survey results and the steps the organization's taking to fix them. Scott talks about companies using pay equity audits to close gaps and prevent future bias. Patricia: Wait, you're telling me some CEOs are willingly digging into data that could point out cases of them underpaying women and minorities? It sounds like PR suicide but also… refreshing. Roger: Totally, and it’s not just about pay. Scott talks about everything from hiring practices to leadership representation. Some organizations now do monthly reviews to make sure unbiased opportunities are part of their systems. By taking action, you build trust, and that improves morale—so it’s a real win-win if leaders can embrace the discomfort of change. Patricia: Which brings me to power structures. We’ve all worked somewhere with those stereotypical “power hoarders”—leaders using their authority to dominate instead of collaborate. Does Scott offer any ideas on breaking that cycle? Roger: She does – she introduces the concept of “collaboration hierarchies.” Instead of traditional, dominance-based hierarchies, you create equitable frameworks that distribute authority and encourage team input. Patricia: Okay, but talk is cheap, right? Collaboration's a nice idea; execution is really hard. How do you actually level the playing field in a workplace? Roger: Anonymizing resumes, for starters. Remove identifiers like names or genders, and recruiters can focus purely on qualifications. Scott mentions studies where resumes with ethnic-sounding names were rated worse than identical ones with European names. Anonymizing removes that bias. Patricia: Sure, practical, but doesn’t that just push the bias further down the line? If you don’t address the mindset of the decision-makers, even that is a temporary fix, isn't it? Roger: That’s where diverse hiring panels come in. Scott shows how these panels balance perspectives, which reduces the chance of biased decisions. When people from different backgrounds co-evaluate candidates, it enriches the process and leads to fairer outcomes. Patricia: Okay, I'll give you that. On paper, it sounds solid. But moving past hiring—what about once people are in the organization? How do leaders empower employees to actually speak up when they see injustice? Roger: It starts with accountability and transparency. Leaders need to create clear reporting channels and protect whistleblowers—no more "shoot the messenger" culture. Scott highlights feedback systems where employees can report issues anonymously and track if action was taken. This reassures employees that their concerns won’t just disappear. Patricia: And what happens when leaders screw up themselves? Because, let's be real, they do. Roger: Absolutely they do, and Scott argues that leaders need to show vulnerability. There was a VP who admitted publicly that they’d failed to address harassment in their team. That actually rebuilt trust and reinforced the organization’s commitment to justice. Patricia: So instead of hiding mistakes, own them. That’s kind of refreshing. Roger: It builds trust. And that’s what turns workplaces into spaces where collaboration, respect, and accountability thrive. When leaders show institutional courage and redesign structures for equity, they pave the way for just work environments that endure. Patricia: You know, Roger, I came into this thinking “just work environments” was just more corporate buzzwords. But Scott’s ideas feel really grounded—like real, possible solutions instead of just lofty ideals. Roger: Exactly, and that's why this book feels so essential. Building just work environments isn’t a quick fix; it’s a continuous effort. But the payoff is a workplace where everyone can grow, contribute, and succeed.

Roger: Okay Patricia, we've “really” covered a lot of ground today, haven’t we? We took a deep dive into workplace injustice, breaking it down into bias, prejudice, and bullying. And we also looked at strategies for victims, bystanders, perpetrators, and leaders. Kim Scott “really” leaves no stone unturned in her pursuit of fairness. Patricia: You know, I have to say, it's not often you see such practical tools for dealing with such a complicated, emotional issue. Whether it's those "5 Ds" for bystanders, setting clear boundaries for victims, or encouraging "institutional courage" for leaders, Scott doesn't just point out the problems—she actually gives us the tools to solve them. Roger: Exactly! And that's what makes this book so special. It's not just about wishful thinking, it empowers everyone in the workplace to make real change. The main message? Justice isn't just the right thing to do; it's actually smart business. When you create an inclusive environment, morale goes up, innovation thrives, and even your profits can improve. Patricia: Okay, but here's my question for our listeners: seriously, take a good, hard look at your own workplace. Are there systems or behaviors that might be causing harm, maybe even without you realizing it? And more importantly, what's one small, specific action you can take to make things better—either for yourself or for someone else? Roger: Because, as Scott reminds us, creating a fair workplace isn't just the job of the leaders or the responsibility of the victims—it's something we all have to work on, all the time. Change starts with one person deciding to do something. So, let's all promise to build workplaces where fairness, respect, and accountability are the standard, not just some rare exception. Patricia: Well, Roger, nicely put. I hope more workplaces will take that first step and embrace the, uh, discomfort of change. Change can be hard, yeah, but when it comes to justice, it's definitely a team sport.