The Price of Nice: Why Brave Leaders Choose Clarity Over Comfort

Speaker A: Welcome to the Good Leadership Podcast. I'm your host, Charles Goode. Here's a scene you'll recognize. A team meeting where everyone is polite, heads are nodding, smiles all around, full of agreement in the room, and then everyone leaves and nothing actually changes. The frustration that no one named keeps building the project that everyone had quiet doubts on keeps moving forward. And the talented person who never quite felt heard starts updating their resume. Nothing was wrong in that meeting. And that's exactly the problem. My guest today calls that the price of nice. Amira Barger is an award winning executive, author and professor who helps leaders build workplaces where courage matters more than convenience. Her book the Price of Nice makes an argument that I think every leader needs to sit with. The niceness we mistake for professionalism is often just the avoidance of conversations that would actually move us forward. That comfort, left unchecked, quietly becomes the thing that keeps teams stuck. Because here's the bet this show is making. You can't outperform what you haven't out learned. And sometimes the thing you need most to learn is how to say the things you've been avoiding. I hope you enjoy. Welcome to the Good Leadership Podcast. I'm Charles Goode. This show is built for leaders, managers and high achievers who want to think better, grow faster, and perform under pressure. Each episode I sit down with leading researchers, bestselling authors, authors and experts to uncover what actually works. The practical tools, proven strategies, and insights you can use when the pressure is real. Because in a world that keeps changing, the edge belongs to those who can out learn what worked yesterday, out think what's coming next and outperform when it counts. Amira, um, welcome to the program.

Speaker B: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure.

Speaker A: You opened the book with a scene from your own career. A team where every meeting was polite smiles, nods full of agreement, and. And yet behind closed doors, frustration was building, projects were stalling, and people were quietly leaving. When you were living through that, what was the moment that you really realized that the team's problem wasn't conflict?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think so many of us have these moments in our career history where it's the real meeting starts when the actual meeting ends. So it's the side conversations, the slack messages or team messages, and the frustration in the hallways or the conversations in the break room or the bathroom. Right. And people are venting privately, but they're refusing to say the hard thing in the room where decisions can actually be made or minds moved and eventually the costs start surfacing. And it did for me in my career and delayed decisions. People are burnt out. There's the attrition, like you said, people start to leave. And I think one of the smartest people on a team I was on resigned and said something like, I'm exhausted from pretending that we are okay and that any of this is okay. And that really stuck with me. That sort of absence of conflict is not the same thing as trust amongst a team or a healthy team. And in many organizations, what leaders call healthy culture is actually a lot of emotional suppression, but with really good branding, if you will. And in my book, the Price of Nice, you know, I argue that niceness often becomes a performance of harmony and civility. Organizations don't become unhealthy because people disagree. And I think that that is a mindset shift that we need to constantly be reminded of. Uh, because disagreement is uncomfortable and many people steer away from anything that might feel like they will be unliked, that they won't be perceived the same way. And organizations become unhealthy because people stop telling those truths that are needed, though they may have a tie to temporary discomfort. But that temporary discomfort I believe is in service to a more permanent long term solution and health of an organization and culture that we really need. And actionably, leaders need to stop measuring culture by how calm a, uh, room feels. Right. Calm can often mean or signal safety, but it can also mean and signal fear. And I think a healthier question is, can people disagree here without fear of punishment? And I think that's the kind of question and mindset from leaders that changes everything. And so I left that organization too for the kind of organization that asked that question of can people disagree here without fear of punishment?

Speaker A: I love that. And um, really that word avoidance is really the engine that I see of the whole book. And I think that what makes it so relevant for leaders is it looks like not wanting to derail a good meeting. So let me push on that, because you make the distinction that I think will hit hard for our audience is that nice is about avoiding discomfort, while nerve is about balancing empathy and candor. But a lot of leaders hearing that will say, um, I'm not being nice, I'm being strategic. So how do you help leaders tell the difference between genuine strategy and self protective avoidance dressed up as a strategy?

Speaker B: Yeah, One of the tools that I have in the book is a sort of from two framework of nice to nerve. And it has a lot of these signals and a lot of the language that you might want to look for for when Something is really digging deep into nice versus nerve. And so, you know, I've watched leaders say things like, we need to be thoughtful, when what they really, I believe mean is I don't want backlash. Or they'll say something like, the timing isn't right. When what I think they want to say or mean is, I'm uncomfortable with the consequences of continuing this conversation. So to me, real strategy for those leaders who say I'm just being strategic is intentional and directional. Avoidance is circular. It actually puts something on the table and you never come back to it. And you just keep hashing out the challenge itself. And it buys time, but doesn't actually solve anything. And as a communications executive, what I get to do every day when I'm not writing books, you know, I've learned that organizations are incredibly sophisticating at, uh, rationalizing fear, right? We rename it, we professionalize it, we call it alignment or sequencing or stakeholder management or just strategy like you said. But I think our body often knows before our brain admits it that if you're rehearsing a conversation for three weeks, losing sleep over it, or hoping the issue resolves itself without intervention, without discomfort, there's a good chance that you're not being strategic. You're being avoidant or overly protective of that comfort that we so inherently love. And so one exercise I give leaders is really simple to ask yourself, if, if fear were removed from this equation, what decision would I make? And the answer is usually, uh, a, uh, truism, a truth. And the core thesis of the Price of Nice is that niceness prioritizes comfort and preservation, and nerve prioritizes responsible truth. Telling, that candor. And so, you know, you practice nerve on a dial is what I tell people who are like, I'm just being strategic. And I, you know, I agree there are moments to turn the dial down to a, ah, 1 or a 2, and they're most turned the dial up to a 10 or a 15 or a 20. And so it depends on context. Which room am I in? Am I in a group, uh, of my team, A group of the board of directors? Is it a one on one conversation? What are the stakes of this conversation? Right? Is it a conversation, uh, at the grocery store or conversation in the boardroom? Different stakes. And so you practice nerve on a dial. And that, to me, that's the strategy piece is what level of nerve am I practicing in this moment?

Speaker A: Perhaps you can go a little bit deeper into that nerve concept because I think that might be new for our listeners and not Understanding really the full meaning of it.

Speaker B: So I write about in the book how the antithesis of nice is not mean, which is too easy. And that's immediately where people's mind goes, because that's what we're socialized and conditioned with as kids, right? Is don't be mean, be nice. But I talk about the antithesis of nice as, ah, nerve and nerve. One of the dictionary definitions is audacity, which I love. And to me, it is the audacity to challenge, to push back, to disrupt, to be that squeaky will who raises their hand and says, I have one more question. That's actually something I challenge myself to do in every room that I'm in is ask one more tough question, not just for the sake of it, but because I know so often in these leadership rooms and corporate and professional spaces is there's a lot of holding back because of that commitment to comfort that we have. You don't want to be the person to disrupt. You don't want to be unliked. So I challenge myself ask one more tough question that will help to elicit better conversation, better decisions in this room right here, right now. So to me, nerve is exactly that. Challenging, disrupting for the sake of progress, right? Because so often we reach for nice because it keeps the status quo, it maintains things right. Think about that leader whose behavior everyone talks about but no one addresses. We keep it nice. We stay in our lane. We don't push. Nerve would say, you know what? This is something to challenge because our leadership behaviors become the culture of the organization. And I think that we will be better for it in the long term if we address this leader's behaviors. And then you figure out strategically what does addressing their behaviors look like in that moment. And to me, that is nerve. Or even a simple example of this happens so often. You know, I'm. I'm a woman in corporate American. Oftentimes, you know, let's say you're in a boardroom and you get interrupted, or someone repeats a, uh, great idea that you just said five minutes ago. And oftentimes what happens is people pull you aside in the hallway or in the bathroom and say, you know, I. I heard what you were saying, and that was your idea, and I think it was really great. Or I saw that so and so interrupted two or three times, and I really didn't think that was right. To me, nerve would be, those are, that's really nice that those people said that and recognized it. Nerve would be saying it in the room, hey, you just interrupted. Mira, I was really interested in what she was saying, let's let her continue or hey, yeah, that is a great idea. Amira, uh, just mentioned that five minutes ago. Amira M. Can you say a little bit more about that great idea you had that is nerve in itself. And that's a really simple way to practice nerve in so many of the professional spaces that we're in. Because I know it's a very common experience for many people to be others spoken over or an idea to be repackaged, which is one that you brought into the room. So you can practice nerve in very simple ways just like that.

Speaker A: So you give the leaders four diagnostic questions to ask themselves in the moment, right? Am I avoiding this because it's uncomfortable or because it's unimportant? The second question is does my response prioritize short term harmony or long term growth? And you have two more. But which one of those four do you find that it's hardest for leaders to answer honestly and why?

Speaker B: Yeah, it's that first question of uh, am I prioritizing this because it's uncomfortable or hard? Because I think that self awareness is one of the main reasons why we choose and reach for nice versus nerve. I think we are so socially and familially and politically and professionally conditioned to reach for whatever maintains calm, comfort and status quo in many ways. And it becomes something that is sort of that background behind the scenes operation of your brain and your emotions and you don't even realize sometimes that what you're doing is choosing comfort. I think takes a really self aware leader and a growth minded person to understand. You know what, maybe there's a different position I can take here or maybe there's a different question I can ask. And I think you have to do a lot of internal and self work to be self aware enough to know when you're choosing nice versus nerve and to have the bravery, the nerve to actually choose nerve. Because sometimes you will be the squeaky wheel, sometimes people will see you as disruptive or oh my gosh, why does she have yet another question or provocation for the group? But I think those growth minded leaders will see what you're attempting to do and that what you are usually doing is you are helping the group progress, you are helping move the conversation forward and helping people to think deeper and to think more critically about the decisions that we're making together as a leadership team.

Speaker A: Well, I have found too that your third question, if I don't say this, what might it uh, cost my team in trust or performance is often the one that is difficult for many of them as well, because it forces leaders to calculate the invisible cost of silence rather than just the visible cost of speaking. And I find that senior leaders, especially, are often very good at managing immediate risk, but very poor at accounting for that cumulative silence.

Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. I think that question disrupts the story that leaders tell themselves about neutrality, which is something that comes up a lot when I talk about nice versus nerve. And people will say, well, why can't I just choose neutral? And I think most senior leaders don't see themselves as maintaining harmful systems or decisions. Right. They see themselves as preserving stability. But silence is rarely neutral organizationally. Silence almost always protects whatever existing power structures there are within our companies. And I think once leaders realize that avoiding discomfort has downstream consequences for other people entrusted to their care, especially people with less positional power in the hierarchy, the conversation becomes moral in some ways, not just managerial. And that's a, uh, deeply uncomfortable realization for many executives because it reframes passivity as participation in harming the people around you. And in the book, I challenge leaders to understand that every organization already has a culture. And the question is whether you are shaping it intentionally or. Or simply inheriting it unconsciously, because you don't push back or question anything because you stay silent.

Speaker A: So I want to step back for a second, because one of the things that separates this book and your work from a lot of leadership books is that it's grounded in communication theory and social science. It's not just offering an opinion. You're explaining a system. So tell us more about what got you interested in this work and really how it's unique and different in this space.

Speaker B: You know, I had a moment in my communications career, and I've been in communications the entirety of, uh, my career. I was very specific in knowing what I wanted to do out of college, but it's when I stopped looking at communication as only individual behavior and started looking at it as infrastructure. And there's a lot of work on. I mentioned this in the book Defensive versus Supportive Climates, and that was a huge piece of or body of work for me. So relational dialectics is a theory in communications. Organizations teach people, often unintentionally, which emotions are safe, which questions are rewarded and which truths are dangerous. Right. And whether that's consciously or subconsciously or just through osmosis of existing in an organization, you start to pick up those elements of the culture. And that's not personality. Right. That's conditioning. If every time someone challenges an idea, they are labeled difficult, eventually the organization trains people into silence. And over time, niceness becomes institutionalized by the ways that we are behaving as a group. And the organization starts selecting for agreeability over people who are clear or direct. And what fascinated me as, uh, both a professor and a communication strategist, is that these systems become self direct, reinforcing. The quieter people get, the more leadership assumes alignment exists. And that's why I say in the book that niceness is not softness. It's often a control mechanism. And that can be true even if it's unintentional by those who hold most power and decision making strength within an organization.

Speaker A: I like how you bring in Jack Gibbs defense of climate research that shows that when people feel evaluated, controlled, or, or judge, they withdraw from honest communication. And I see this all the time. Organizations build these defensive climates through unintentional but consistent signals. Who gets praised, who gets interrupted, who gets challenged. Authority without consequences. It's a fully engineered communication environment where honesty is structurally very risky.

Speaker B: Mm, very.

Speaker A: So let's move to, um, I love the Challenger disaster that you bring in. And that's one of the most striking examples in the book. Engineers who knew but didn't feel safe enough to insist on being heard. You write that silence always carries a risk, which I think is so important for leaders to know. For a leadership audience, what do you think are the modern day Challenger moments hiding inside their organizations right now? The places where smart people are seeing something but likely not saying anything.

Speaker B: Yeah. And you know, for many leaders, it won't always be a, uh, life or death scenario like it was with the Challenger. They were very high stakes there. But every organization has a version of those engineers that are right now, they're whispering in the hallways. There's someone inside the company, somebody that knows this project timeline is unrealistic, or our culture is not a safe space for everyone, or we have some data that's being manipulated, or our DEI strategy is. May be performative and not actually serving us well, or this product that we're trying to launch has ethical risks, or, you know, this workload that we have for certain positions is not sustainable. And they are trying to decide right now whether speaking up is worth the social and professional cost. And that's the real lesson of the Challenger. Not simply that people stayed silent, but that the environment they were in trained them to believe that silence was safer than truth. And as a leader, our job is not to say, you know, my door is open. We hear that a lot, right? My door is open. I have an open Door policy. So many leaders say that, but really you have to make moves to challenge the policies and the practices within your corporation, within your professional spaces, such that you actually help to reduce the penalties for truth telling. And the fastest way to know whether you've done that is what happens to the person who disagrees publicly, particularly if they disagree publicly with the most senior person in the room, whoever they are. Even up to the CEO or the board chair, because everyone is watching for that answer. And I think that is very telling about your organizational culture. If you pause and think about that right here, right now, you'll have a great understanding of where your organization stands and what your next steps can, could potentially be to help progress towards something better.

Speaker A: I've seen that as well. It's where the HR director who sees the warning signs of a toxic team, but defers to the business leader or the CLO who knows a training initiative isn't working, but doesn't want to lose the budget. And I find that the costs aren't always catastrophic, but they're always compounding. So it's just something to keep in mind. And that question of the environment is so important because there's so much of what you're describing isn't about what leaders say in critical moments. It's about the signal they're constantly sending before any moment arrives. So, Amira, in the book you talk about three different priming domains. One of, um, them is the language in meetings. So phrases like let's stay aligned primes compliance. You can also have other phrases, right, like let's hear all perspectives before we align, primes, curiosity. Talk to us more about that and how that really impacts the signals that leaders are sending.

Speaker B: Yeah, you start to really set the tone for your team and how you choose your language and how you position things. So I think a nerve centered leader might say something in an organization like, I realize I've been using the language of treating everyone the same because it felt neutral and safe. But equal treatment doesn't always produce equal outcomes. And I want us to be honest enough to examine where our systems advantage some people more than others. So just think about how you may never have heard a leader say anything like that before. In an organization, we usually hear the message of sameness and that can be itself priming. And I mention this concept of priming in the book and I wrote about it from the perspective of the Truman Show. It's a, uh, great movie. Jim Carrey stars in it. So I don't know if people have seen it, but if you Haven't. It's worth watching just to understand this concept. But in that movie, the Truman Show, Jim Carrey's character is. He's unknowingly living in this dome where every aspect of his life is curated. And there are all these messages and signals given to him that help move him towards what they want him to do, the job they want him to have, the person they want him m. To marry, the coffee that they want him to drink, the car they want him to drive. And it's because of all these messages around him in the space, in the climate that dictate his behavior. And so you can think of priming that way in our organizations. In the book I mentioned, you know, a poster on the wall that says, you know, harmony thrives here, which is sort of messaging to people that those who disrupt or challenge or have a difference of opinion are not welcome. And just imagine, even if subliminally, how that conditions people for showing up in a meeting, for showing up just in the day to day of how they do their work and how they converse and socialize with the people around them. And so as a leader, you have a really powerful opportunity and position to reframe the language that you're using and to prime your team towards being those strategic critical thinkers who ask more questions, who move with clarity, who operate as people who are direct and forward where we need to be so that our organization, our team, our projects move forward. And truth and candor are often the things that help an organization to move forward and make sure that we're having the most right conversations as leaders in the room together.

Speaker A: I love that, uh, concept and priming those various domains. We just talked about language and meetings. You also alluded to that physical or digital environments, what's on the walls, how meetings open, and then those recognition practices. Because what gets praised primes what gets repeated. If above and beyond is always celebrated, well, you're priming burnout, not performance. It's those consistent opening phrases, those go to compliments. The things that leaders never think about because they become automatic can really change the behavior and the culture of an organization. So let's move into the actual behavior. Because a framework is powerful, but leaders really need to know what it looks like in specific moments. And you give four really concrete nice versus nerve examples in the book. So you give this specific example of the nice versus Nerve across four domains. Feedback, conversations, team meetings, workload discussions, and dei. The DEI example is the one that really stopped me because nice says, well, we treat everyone the same here. While the Nerve response says fairness isn't always the same as sameness. For a senior leader who has been saying the nice version for years, maybe their whole career, what does the first nerve conversation on equity actually look like and sound like for them?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, it's one of the examples I gave just a second ago is a nerve centered leader recognizes that sameness and fairness are not the same thing. And so, um, I think the phrase I mentioned was a leader might say simply like, I realize that I've been using language that is about treating everyone the same because that's really what has felt sort of neutral. But equal treatment doesn't produce equal outcomes. And a leader might say, I want us to be honest enough to examine where systems are advantaging some people over others. And so what's happening there is accountability without self destruction. A leader is recognizing something. Um, um, they're being open with their team without trying to be perfect. And they're being very clear without having, uh, what Brene Brown calls a shame spiral of they may have been behaving one way and someone may have mentioned it and they realize that they've caused harm or something. And one thing I tell executives all the time is that employees don't require perfection, though it can often feel that way. But what they want is consistency and they want credibility. And credibility grows when leaders can acknowledge the complexity of, instead of hiding behind polished corporate language. But just the honesty of something as simple as, I don't know the answer to that or I don't have any power to change that, but here's what we can do, right? And the major theme in the Price of Nice, one of them is that trust is built through congruence and consistency, not performance. So I think where you can have really human moments with people to level with them and do everything but be perfect, I think will move you a step closer to progress in being the kind of leader that practices nerve and gains trust from the team around them.

Speaker A: I've seen it as well where the leader says, I want to be honest. I'm not sure that I've been completely true because certain support structures may be unequal in workload and sponsorship and who gets heard in meetings. So you can also reference it in terms of asset framing as an alternative to deficit framing. So you're starting from what's there, right, rather than what's lacking.

Speaker B: Yes. Yeah. Asset framing is one of my favorite communication tools where we start from a place of, uh, what are the assets that a person or an organization bring into the room? And it's a more positive way to frame things versus the deficit component of what's lacking here in particular. So it's a really powerful tool that I mentioned in the book in that we use all the time in social impact communications when we're, you know, talking about nonprofit organizations especially, and what they bring to the people they are serving, but also recognizing that the people in community that need the services of that nonprofit also have something to bring to the table, like solutions. They're the people closest to the problem and might have the best solutions. And that's an asset framed way of thinking. Thinking about a challenge is let's go to the people closest to the problem. They might have the best solution and they may not need us to save them.

Speaker A: And this really leads into what you also say about framing as a leadership superpower. The same facts, completely different impact based on the sequence you give. Example, we fell short, but the team worked hard versus the team worked hard, but we fell short. What you remember is what comes last. Usually that's the reframe. Most leaders need to practice so that they can reframe some of these conversations, especially around feedback conversations. I see this happen a lot where they just don't lead with the right things or they don't end the right way.

Speaker B: Yes. And one of my favorite reframes, I do a lot of healthcare communications. And so I give this example to people and they immediately get it because I think it's a common experience, or at least something people can imagine is imagine you're at the doctor's office and they mention to you the surgery that you need to have. Um, um, has a 90% survival rate. That's asset framing. That's really positive. Like, oh, 90%, that's great. Versus a 10% death rate. Imagine if they had led with the surgery that you need has a 10% death rate. That's not great framing. You want to start with the 90% of, um, you've got opportunity or you have chance. There's something we can do. You can make it through this. And so always trying to think about what you're relaying to your teams and to the people that you interact with, because that is the thing that their brain will linger on and it will frame how they perceive the conversation, and it will frame the questions that they ask and the decisions that they make based on the language that you have given them in that moment.

Speaker A: Well, this also brings to mind the primacy effect from the anchoring chapter. The opening word in any conversation sets the frame for everything that follows. So you have the recency effect, it's the last thing they heard. And also the primacy effect, the first thing they heard. So important those two critical elements are in any conversation and making sure those are framed correctly.

Speaker B: Yeah. And you know, I think oftentimes one thing that I hear from leaders, especially people that I coach, is something that comes up a lot. People recognize this phrase of who dropped the ball when something goes awry. A better question to ask is what conditions made this outcome the one that we are now dealing with the fastest? Impact reframe is shifting from blame framing to learning framing is what can we learn from this? And that single shift changes whether people move into defensiveness or into problem solving. And behaviorally, blame really narrows cognition, whereas curiosity, powerful superpower, really expands it and gets people thinking about possibilities more so so using the most right kinds of questions. And I think the highest performing cultures that I've worked with are not the ones that without mistakes. They are the ones where people can surface mistakes quickly because the environment doesn't punish them for making mistakes. And it doesn't punish them for the transparency of saying, hey, I made a mistake or the team made a decision and as uh, such that here's where we are. And in communications, framing matters because the brain, as you said, remembers emotional sequencing. The final frame becomes the takeaway. So instead of who's to blame or who dropped the ball, ask a different question. What conditions made this possible? What part did I as a leader play in this and how can we move forward from it?

Speaker A: And it all builds this framework, the book into this architecture about every communication choice either climbs a ladder or drops back down. And you have a framework just for that. You call it the three Cs. Three Cs are communication, connection, cohesion. And argue that most teams are stuck on the first rung, exchanging messages, but never really building real trust. Where do most often do you see teams get stuck on that ladder? If it's. I would argue it's probably there between communication and connection. But where do you see that happen most often? And what's maybe one tip or piece of advice that you can give them to help them climb to that next rung of the ladder?

Speaker B: Yeah, I think the cohesion piece is one of the hardest to get to, is there are so many tools that we have as leaders to communicate. There are a lot of activities and things we put in place to connect our team members and to build trust with one another. But the cohesion piece is where we start to see that trust leading to the kind of Behaviors where we're moving and grooving together seamlessly as a team. And I think that takes a lot of emotional intelligence. It takes a lot of construction as a leader is cohesion doesn't just come by happenstance. You have to communicate in the most right ways. You have to actually build trust through the connection. And those are really hard things to do. And so the trust that gets built between connection and then eventual cohesion is a really difficult place, I think, for leaders to move beyond because of, I think, just simply the time that it takes and because so many leaders don't necessarily have the tools. You know, I learned a stat a couple years ago that if we were to look across, across the world, you know, globally, and to ask ourselves, you know, how much training do leaders and middle managers actually get every year within an organization? It's somewhere between two to three hours. And when I think about two to three hours of training professionally, professional development in an organization to actually lead people, how much of that could possibly be around trust building, around managing your people well? And so I think part of the reason why it's hard to move from connection to cohesion is literally a skills gap, is we hand people teams and we hand them these big responsibilities. And I think people management is one of the hardest things to do in any organization. It's hand me a P and L or, um, you know, a project any day. But the people management part is so hard, and we assume that people have those skills and we don't upskill them to do it successfully. And so that psychological steadiness that's needed to create the kind of cultures where cohesion is possible is something that we sort of leave to chance. And I think that's why it's one of the hardest rungs to move into and to the hardest hump to sort of get over is some people just don't have those skills. And we need to prioritize that as leaders and in our organizations to give people the skills to build trust and to actually create team cohesion.

Speaker A: That's a sobering stat. Uh, two to three hours per manager and not really training them on those right skills to build the right kind of communication and right type of people leader that they need to be for their organization. I've seen that teams are usually informationally efficient, but relationally empty. They have great processes, clear emails, organized meetings, but they have close to zero psychological intimacy. And that bridge between communication and connection in your framework, you call it the temperature check is really asking how are we feeling about where we are Right now. And then, most um, importantly, it's listening without trying to fix.

Speaker B: Yep. Listen without trying to fix. Because you'll find that you will, I think, often elicit more conversation from the people that are bringing things to you if you pause long enough. I think in many conversations, we call it that 22nd lull, especially when you're in a difficult conversation and people get really uncomfortable with silence, and so they try to fill it with filler language and anecdotes and solutions. And I tell a lot of leaders, don't be afraid of the 22nd lull. Actually, let it stand. In fact, for everyone here listening, let that be a challenge to you in your next difficult conversation or a conversation where a team member is bringing something to you. Let the 22nd lull happen. Let it happen. It's uncomfortable at first, but when you get into a groove of it, you'll find that the person who's bringing something to you, it will elicit more conversation and expansive details from them so that you can more actively listen and get more out of them. Of. Okay, what is the actual challenge here? And how can I actually be of use and of help? Don't let the silence move the conversation along too quickly. Sometimes you need to let it stand because it will actually help enrich the conversation.

Speaker A: Well, thank you so much, Amir, um, for joining me today. Remind our listeners how they can get in contact with you and learn more about your work and get your new book. Yes. Your relatively new book.

Speaker B: Yes, thank you. It's came out in October 2025. I'm @amirabarger, uh.com or hello, mirabarger.com and I'm Mirabarger on all of the socials From Instagram to TikTok. You can find me everywhere. I'm very active and I look forward to hearing from readers. Reach out, because I do respond and I would love to hear how the book is resonating with you.

Speaker A: Thank you so much, Amira, for joining me today. Really appreciate it. Thank you all for listening. Here's the challenge that Amira leaves us with. Before you go to sleep tonight, take one situation you've been managing with niceness and ask yourself, honestly, with that nerve response, what would that actually sound like? And then in the next 48 hours, go to someone on your team and ask them genuinely, what do you need to thrive? And listen without fixing, without explaining, without deflecting. Until next time. Remember, it's not what you know, but what you do differently that makes a difference. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Good Leadership podcast. Remember, great ideas only matter when they change what you do next. So choose one insight from today's conversation and put it into practice this week. If this episode was valuable, follow the show and share it with someone who would benefit. And until next time, remember, the Edge belongs to those who outlearned what worked yesterday, who can outthink what's coming next so that they can outperform when it counts.