What Inclusion Really Means at Work (And Why We’re Still Getting It Wrong)

Inclusion is one of the most talked-about values in the modern workplace—but also one of the most misunderstood. We say the word, we build strategies around it, but do we actually know what it looks and feels like?

In this episode of Relationships at Work, host Russel Lolacher welcomes Peter Andrew Danzig — LSW, MSS, MA, CCPT, CPT — a trauma-informed therapist, inclusion strategist, and performing arts professional, to challenge conventional thinking around workplace inclusion.

Together, they explore:

• Why the “everyone at the table” definition isn’t enough
• How belonging is the true measure of inclusion
• The crucial difference between responsibility and accountability in DEI
• The cost of conflict avoidance in leadership
• Why HR can’t (and shouldn’t) shoulder inclusion alone
• What it actually means to bring your full self to work

This conversation isn’t about checking boxes. It’s about redefining inclusion as a lived, evolving, and shared responsibility—and how organizations can move from intention to real impact.

And connect with me for more great content!

• Sign Up for R@W Notes 
• Subscribe on Youtube
• Follow on Linkedin
• Follow on Instagram
• Follow me on Threads
• Follow on TikTok
• Email me anytime 

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Russel Lolacher: Well, we're at Workhuman LIVE. Hi Peter.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Hi. How you doing Russel?

Russel Lolacher: Doing very good. I am really excited to have this conversation. This is Peter Andrew Danzig. Peter and I met at last year's Workhuman LIVE and hit it off in Austin, and I've been trying to get him on the show for a year, but they have been... I wouldn't say avoiding me.

They've been very busy. But I won't take it personally at all. But I'm super excited to talk about inclusion today, but really I'm trying to figure out the missing ingredients to inclusion is what I'm kind of... inclusion is such a funny thing because we were talking right before I pressed the record button that inclusion is just a different world now than it was even a year ago, two years ago.

So I guess before we do anything to start, I like starting with definitions. So I just sat in on a panel with you talking about psychological safety and mental health, and I, I think I'd like to get in there too. But first, before we do anything, and my rambling continues... actually, I'm gonna start off with another question first.

See, I got excited. I've been waiting a year. I ask all my guests this question, Peter, so I'm gonna ask you it as well. What is your best or worst employee experience?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Ooh, okay. I will say my worst employee experience is lack of transparency, but defining transparency as an integral like strategic imperative of leadership.

So I have been on the receiving end of knowing what is going on behind the scenes, and then as a leader watching that being, you know, disseminated across staff. And this is across many industries, you all, this is not just, you know, where my current institution is. I've seen this just generally, and then the transparency is lost in translation.

Or when people ask a question and we should be transparent. It's not there. That's my worst experience because I, I can't sit comfortably and watch that happen. And I'm the person who usually like raises the hand and says, I think we're missing a component. Maybe I can phrase the question differently for us all and usually gets me into trouble.

So that's my worst experience.

Russel Lolacher: Do you find that that's generally based on, is it risk aversion? Is that employees don't need to know the full story? We got it. Like is it an ego thing? Like why do you think they do that?

Peter Andrew Danzig: I think it's because organizations reward conflict avoidance. I don't think they reward transparency.

They espouse it, but they just, no, I, I think they reward conflict avoidance because if you're being transparent, there's going to be some dissonance, you know?

Russel Lolacher: But yet in the next sentence we'll talk about trust.

Peter Andrew Danzig:Yeah.

Russel Lolacher: And we'll talk about like, the hypocrisy is deep in that because I've, I've been given information before and I know I've started sentences literally with, I'm probably not supposed to tell you this, but dot dot dot, and I'll still tell the team.

But then the team's relationship with me grows.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes.

Russel Lolacher: And we have more of this... They feel like they want to champion the work more because they... and I can say and be transparent with, there's some things I can't tell you. Yes, yes. But I would love to, but I can't because it's just not...

Peter Andrew Danzig: That's transparency.

Russel Lolacher: That's, yeah. I would love to tell you, but based on financial, lawyer, all that stuff, there are reasons. And they're not dumb. They're pretty okay with that to some point.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Because they're, they're going to understand that you're being transparent. You're just being direct with data that you have. Or some of it's like, I just can't share this with you right now, because there's legal implications that we're not allowed to dispense that, and that, that's probably really uncomfortable.

Name the emotion. Name why you can't be transparent and call it in. So...

Russel Lolacher: So before I got super excited in about digging the topic, I got ahead of myself, so now I can back it up and breathe a bit, Peter.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Do you still want, do you want the best experience?

Russel Lolacher: No. Oh no. 'cause we don't have enough time. And I want to get into...

Peter Andrew Danzig: Fair.

Russel Lolacher: I wanna get, I wanna get, not... you can tell me later.

Peter Andrew Danzig: I love it.

Russel Lolacher: Microphones don't always have to be out. So let's start by your definition of inclusion.

Peter Andrew Danzig: I think that my definition of inclusion is pretty varied from the ways that we like to define inclusion. So I'm gonna say that generally inclusion in most definitions, most people's says it brings everyone to the table and we're all there. And I think that is a great sentiment and also that is not reality. My definition of inclusion is continuously self-auditing yourself and your culture and your beliefs to make sure that you have neurological, empathetic and human-centered growth to continue to grow your perspective.

And that is for all humans. That's the way that we, for me, build inclusion from a psychological perspective because intersectionally there's a lot of different ways that diversity shows up. And if you want everybody at the table, then you know, that's great. But also I identify as a Latinx gender queer person. Is they them pronouns? If you're going to include me, do you want all of me or do you want a piece of me? You know? And so I think that for me it's, it's, it's more about creating a, a kind of a, a space for continued growth and shifting that narrative. And I don't know that there is a full definition of inclusion because what are you including is the question for me also, like what are you looking to include?

Is it perspective? Is demographic experience? Is it human experience? Is it somebody that you've excluded specifically for a reason? So I think that there's like a varied dynamic there.

Russel Lolacher: I got a, I'm putting my communication hat on for a minute here. Yeah. Because I agree with everything you said. I believe in it. My worry is to get buy-in in organizations, you can't talk like that.

Peter Andrew Danzig: No, I cannot. No, I cannot. Which is why I like talking on your show right now.

Russel Lolacher: So how do you, for lack of a better term, sell it it to someone that might go, I don't know... DEI is a buzzword, as opposed to a grouping of separate words that mean separate things. So how do you get them on board when it's such a deeper conversation?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yeah, so for me, the way I get them on board is I talk about belonging and I say, if you come home to, let's say, family dinner and whatever you define family as, and they say, oh we do, we would like you not to attend this dinner tonight. We're gonna have dinner as a family, but without you.

How does that feel? And they're like, oh, well, they're my family. That's my home. I built that. I, I I gave, I gave you life. Like, how do you, how do you, why can't? I was like, that's, that's what, that's happening. That's like not inclusive for you. You know? Maybe there's a reason that they didn't want you there.

Maybe they were planning your surprise birthday. That's a, that's a nice sentiment, right? But the way that I bring in people into that in the workplace, I'm like, you have to see if your staff and employees and culture has a sense of belonging. And if people don't feel that they can ask, oh, is there, why can't I come to the dinner? Is there a reason? Did I, did I hurt you? Did I make somebody angry? It brings in conversations 'cause people, all, all of us have a sense of belonging. We wanna belong somewhere. It's a human narrative. We, we want connection. Humans crave connection, whether you're introvert, extroverted, ambiverts. Any words that you all that are all the buzzwords right now, even in terms of psychology, but a sense of being connected to something and belonging is something that they can be, that's a venture in for me.

And I usually, or sometimes I say like, Hey, let's talk about your perks at work. What do you like? People are like, oh, I like this, this, this. I'm like, great. What if I took that away for a whole entire day and you couldn't do that at all? They're like, oh, well I, those perks wouldn't make me feel excited about work, and I wouldn't feel like I belong there. That's kind of like, that's the perks, and I'm like, that's why I come here. I'm like, oh, okay. Well, you know, then that's a sense of what's not happening for your employees, so let's solve that because you're, you're feeling like you belong, but your staff don't. So I kind of try and bring it into a, a shared experience because also inclusion can be defined, has been defined, so differently from each person.

I bet that, like I've heard on your show and every everybody else who talks at conferences, it's, everybody's got their own definition for it. And I think you have to find a point of entry for psychological understanding. Like we all, we all do have brains and they operate differently, but we all do want to have a sense of connection. So to me, that's where it is.

Russel Lolacher: I love the connection to relatability. I love the connection to story. And then hopefully that's inspiring curiosity.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes.

Russel Lolacher: So you can at least get to a shared understanding, which is why I get into definitions a lot. Do you feel like the definition of inclusion has changed in the last to, to our sort of mentioning it earlier in the last couple of years versus, I don't know, five, 10 years ago?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes. I, I, I think that 10 years ago we were having conversations that were less intersectional, and so people pointed to historical moments that I think needed and continue to warrant a, a strict definition on inclusion when it comes to demographics or experience and lived experience and exclusion.

A hundred percent agree with that. But right now especially after 2020, I, I've seen people make it a KPI and in every study the best measurements of success that come close to, to proving it, still center around human connection and belonging because you can't, you can't have people separated by the different fractions of their lived experience.

And so it's like, what are you trying to include? And so I think that the definition is both way too expansive and also way too rigid. And sometimes I'm like, do we really, what do we mean by inclusion? Do we really mean, do I belong here or do you, do I want to be here? Do you want me to be here? And I, I think that it comes down to also values misalignment and, and values fatigue.

And, and that's, that, that's real, you know? And so I think the definition now is shifting and it's become politicized and it's, I do think it's become a recruitment tool. That has shown that you may espouse to have that as a KPI, but if you don't have a firm understanding of your own culture and how to include that, you're, you're not going to retain your talent.

You're not going to really navigate a culture of inclusion. And what I say is belonging.

Russel Lolacher: Who's responsible for this? Because we're at an HR conference and they sure seem like they have the pen on this.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yeah.

Russel Lolacher: But do they?

Peter Andrew Danzig: We're all responsible for this. I say all of us as model citizens are responsible for this because at any point people have a fluidity in your life.

You can start in one place and end in another. And what is the definition of a leader? We pointed at our senior most leader like executives and I have seen leaders who, who espouse this and follow it and work with full integrity on, on trying to make their intention match the impact, but the other leaders don't buy it in and then everybody looks at them for it.

And then I have employees coming in and, and thinking that they don't have the ability to make change as an individual contributor or an entry level position. And I'm like, we all as humans have to kind of understand this, and it comes up to this conference. We're talking a lot about psychological safety and I note if you, if you work through the APAs at least definition, it's a belief system and not everybody believes the same thing.

And so if one person believes they have psychological safety to be included, but another person doesn't, then that means that we're not talking about what everybody believes to be true, and that then it becomes metaphorical. It's a metaphor. It's like, it's like we have this and we stand for it that, and it means that we're community, but also community could be exclusive. It could community, and when we study psychology, I remember being in, in grad school and them being like, look at all these words on the board. And you look at them and they're so, you're like, Ooh, community. Emotional intelligence, literacy, and everybody's very excited and they're like, these are actually, can also be incredibly painful and negative words because they can be used to support, but they can also be used to exclude and detriment, which is, I think we're seeing, I'm just gonna go there.

I think everybody at this HR conference is a little bit confused because they're seeing verbiage and language that has been used to be helpful to now limit and, and restrict. And so now inclusion has become something that I think that nobody knows how to define because there is so much kind of consumption of different thoughts and ideologies that people are lost in the sauce and they're forgetting that they also have their own self-accountability that they need to put into that.

So I say we are culture's co-created. And separating culture from DEI, from employee engagement wellbeing, psychosocial interactions... we're humans. So you can't, you can't separate our human... you can't take pieces of us when it's convenient. I always say cuando sea conveniente. When convenient.

Russel Lolacher: Well, it's so funny you say that. I mean, I overheard somebody, I think it was at your panel that stood up and talked about, well, I'm in charge of culture, so I only touch on DEI. I'm like, are you kidding me?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes! My brain broke for a minute and I was like, oh. I was like, I respectfully, I disagree a lot, so that's a lot to unpack. But I do think in the field that, on my panel, I, I did apologize to the HR professionals because at some point we did excommunicate them from those conversations.

Russel Lolacher: I love that you said that.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yeah. And I was, and I'm like, nobody's ever, I don't know that they're ever gonna hear, I'm sorry and somebody generally mean it, but I was like, as a person who does this and you bring in as a consultant, I even sometimes be like, thank you for the contract.

And I go in and I work with everybody in HR says, thank you. And they, and I've never, there have been times I usually work some organizations, some of them don't even let me work with HR. They, they just make them send the contract and I'm like, I'm sorry I didn't diplomatically disrupt and challenge that and say, oh my gosh I would like to talk with them and learn more before I come in and work with your organization.

I try to, but sometimes I've accepted the no, and that's why I offered them a general apology because DEI is not a, it has become also a pedagogy and it's, it should be in an embedded human practice. And so we have excommunicated them from the table, and now that we're not allowed to talk about it, we're pushing them to have to take that on.

And I think it's, it's cruel and unfair and dehumanizing to ask them to take it on now solo, when and when, when we can't have those conversations and not acknowledge and affirm the experience that they've had. And a lot of them, like I saw, they like, they were excited to hear that and I was like, I'm glad it registers. But no, I truly am sorry that you had that experience.

Russel Lolacher: I just feel like HR needs a friend. Like it feels like...

Peter Andrew Danzig: They do! Oh my gosh.

Russel Lolacher: They're so out in the wilderness. A lot of these HR people that are being thrown all this work. Like I think there was a number at the beginning of this conference where you said 777 people here. One HR department.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yep.

Russel Lolacher: It's just one person. I don't know how big their companies are, but still that's a lot to put on considering how many hats they have to wear. So this will lead me to the question that I note that most challenges, and inclusion is certainly one of them, it tends to come down to bad leadership.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes.

Russel Lolacher: Like they were talking about HR professionals with the highest turnover rate. And they were talking about the reasons for that is their leadership doesn't listen to them. Or I'm like, okay, so we're back. It's not an HR problem, it's a leadership problem.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes.

Russel Lolacher: So this goes back to my inclusion piece is you were talking about executive where half of them get it and half of them don't. How did that half become executive then? So where is this? How should this be understood better to be a part of promotion and opportunity rather than just going, we got a bum to fill. Let's put an executive in there. 'cause they delivered a thing.

Peter Andrew Danzig: No organization has taken me off on it, but I'm saying it here. I hope you keep it in. I really believe that executive leaders at some point lose their sense of humanity and just become a title. And they, they live on fear of not meeting their KPIs, and therefore they also have a lot at risk. I'm not giving, I'm giving the grace there. I'm not giving full grace. I'm giving grace that that happens.

And at some point we also stop teaching and equipping them to grow neurologically, empathetically, culturally. And so they rest on what they know is working or what they're being told. And here's my thing, I think that human resources can't implement this. I think worldwide Industrywide, when we think about leadership, I love and no organization has taken me up on it yet, as a consultant, I come in and I say, I would love, my suggestion is 360 reviews for everybody on your team that actually impact your, that leader's score, their merit, their potential for a bonus and, and is graded on there. There are ways that you can take those experiences and also gain knowledge. I don't think it should be from their direct leader above, because we keep pushing hierarchy above.

And good leadership as we know, you're the best leaders are the ones that empower their employees to feel autonomous, to make a decision without fear. And we talk about psychological safety of retro, like of they, they don't fear making the wrong decision and failing forward. And I love that. We've had, like when Brene Brown talked about failing forward, everybody was like, yes, yes, yes.

And then some point. It's still, people register with it. They say yes, but they, they won't allow for it. And that's because there, there is this like inherent belief that leadership is a hierarchical thing and yet leaders say, I lead by equity. And I'm like, that's not, that's not actual, that, that's not possible in a hierarchical system, but what you can lead with, with, with this intention and, and hopeful impact.

By that, that's diversity of thought. And also accountability means that you accept the feedback. So don't just create the feedback session, but then excommunicate yourself out of it so you don't have to chance having a negative experience that will force you to grow.

Russel Lolacher: So that leads me back to the inclusion topic, which is we were talking sort of a lot of the missing ingredients that inclusion needs in order to be able to be fostered, supported, included throughout the organization. Do you feel like that is a missing ingredient is accountability, when it comes to the organization? Is, is that something that, like we talked again, another piece we had right before we started talking was the difference between responsibility and accountability. Because we're responsible for DEI. But nobody's held accountable for DEI.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes. Yes. And I, you know, one of the things I know the HR professionals at the conference have been talking about is, is. And I think you were in the conversation that you saw when somebody says like, oh, I've had to let leaders go who, who really like aggress and are, and, and that's hard.

I had to fire them and I said, no, they fired themselves. They got themselves there. But the, the inclusion piece, and that's missing in the accountability piece is their feedback and their systems of growth are not the same as the rest of the employees typically, in most organizations. Again, I'm talking about not where I work currently at chop, but what I've seen as a consultant, as a person, as an employee is that there is a different system of evaluating leaders. And I understand that organizationally, the organization itself as a whole operates differently and that their, their, their lived experience is different, but there is something about having a, have a, have a level setting play, like a level field for that feedback and getting it from all angles and all experiences. And you may work with somebody for 10 years and it doesn't mean that, that your experience with them is the same every year.

You know? And so to me that like, I'm sorry, we're rewarding again, conflict avoidance. You know, that's, that's a key part of it.

Russel Lolacher: And that's where I'm sort of going, there's so many different ways to approach inclusion. I, I'm curious also from a full picture. We talk a lot about the bring your full self to work.

And I cringe to that a little bit too because I'm like, well, what if you're an asshole at home? Don't bring that to work.

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yeah, yeah. Yes.

Russel Lolacher: Like there is, you need to be a certain type of person at work. How do you handle that conversation? Because there will be the people that want to swing the pendulum completely in the I want to be me fully me, absolutely me. And you'll have the other people going but that's not professional. That's not, that's not, you know the ideal business suit showing up look that we like. So these, these huge pendulum swings. How do you reconcile that?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yeah, so I run, typically for me, when I engage with that concept, I like authenticity workshops and I like to illustrate the ways in that different personalities can show up at work and different ways that you can bring yourself to work.

And that might mean that some people love to have a separation of like work and private life and they don't want you to know anything. And that is also bringing their full self to work. That's permissible. And also there are people that want to bring their full selves to work, which is a sense of play, creativity, their lived experience, the diversity of thought, their cultural, racial gendered experience, their embodied experiences, which also can, if we're being inclusive, can have a place at work.

And when we talk about professionalism, I think it, it borders again on the notion of respect. The thing that I think there's a missed, there's like a missed kind of concept in there, is that. Are you ha, are, are you all in the same definition of what that, that respect means? Because the person that wants to come to work and have their private life be very private and the person that comes to life and like, or comes to work and, and brings their full life experience can, do they both feel respected in the same way? Is it self-defined? And that's where we get into those tension and those conversations like, I felt disrespected by you. It's like, well, I, you disrespected me. Nobody's saying like, what is respect? And so I think a key, also like integral part of, of an imperative is like you can make inclusion of a KPI, but also you should revisit concepts of human interaction, respect, empathy, compassion, sympathy.

Those are, those are key components. And the spectrum, again, like, yeah, I think every business is different. Like what way you can embed that into your culture depends on the amount of people, the interactions that are happening, the industries. There are some components where both people can show up at the table, but when we lean on one definition such as inclusion, we exclude the other components that are human narratives, which is, is a key of respect.

And you know, I'll be on the record saying, you don't come in and be an asshole. You know? And I think that people are like, what does that mean? And usually I'm like, it shows it's a lack of of respect, which they're like, okay, well what's that mean? I'm like, you're dehumanizing another person. And there, there are ways that you can, you can kind of nuance and understand that, and most people have at some point felt disrespected.

If we could, we could start there, then we could start on inclusion and diversity. But we can't jump in on a concept. And also we can't use DEI to expect people to be then equipped to understand when a person does bring their full self to work. 'cause you can't possibly understand somebody else's lived experience.

You just can't. And it, and that's the whole reason that we investigate this work and try and bring it to the workplace to bring more diversity and experiences. But inclusion does not mean that I, I suddenly understand what dissonance is happening here. It's the acknowledgement and the conversation and the psychological safety is that we both believe we can come with two different lived experiences and acknowledge those hardships and still maybe meet the mission of, of the organization that you're working for.

And that's the hard part because I think people want to pick and choose what part of the missions that they align with and they interpret the mission differently. And that's where I think that for me, authenticity workshops for me are a really great way to have conversations, intersectionality workshops, people can share what they want.

I enjoy knitting and somebody may introduce themselves the way I do it, I, I identify as a Latinx person living with a disability. I'm gender queer, and then I bring that all out in one sentence and the other person's like, Nope. Knitting for me. And I'm like, that's great. What do you knit? Tell me more. What's your, what are the fibers that you use? Who got you into knitting? And then as you ask more questions, they suddenly share more about their family dynamic. They're like, oh, my grandmother and I used to do that together, and it just brings me closer and reminds me of that even if they're not here.

And I'm like, wow, you would've never shared that but I didn't need you to share. If I would've said, tell me about a family experience you felt uncomfortable, but by learning, you like to knit. And then leading with curiosity, they share what they want to, they could have been like. I just like to use these fibers and these colors and I like knitting hats, and it could have stopped there and it's, and it can, right? But it also, you might learn more. So by, by bringing an interest engagement, the full breadth of human experience for me like parts of cultural experiences are really interesting and, and vibrant ways to bring conversations to the table. That's, that's a point of entry.

Russel Lolacher: But there's also the challenge of the workplace. And the workplace will talk about humanity, but then there's the workplace reality where they're like, and to your point, you brought it up a few times. KPIs. So how are we successful then? How do I, how can I check box that? Because you're making all nebulous, and so how do I know I'm doing well?

I get it from one point, but also the whole, how do we know we're moving the needle versus how can we make ones and zeros out of this?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Yes. And I think that, you know, people are leaning into psychological safety right now too, and I brought that up in this session is that that's a belief system and not everybody believes in the same, like if you think about spirituality or understanding, even within communities that have the same spirituality, the the way they interpret belief is different. Believing in something is, is, is very different for each person. And so the thing that I think that we're kind of missing in the KPIs here is the invitation for us to ask other questions, which are emerging now. Asking, are we approaching diversity, equity, inclusion in our organization? Yes or no? If there's a lot of training and conversations, people will say yes, right? And then you'd be like, great. But a different question of, of do you feel. You belong one to five or I belong. And then when you break down, who, if, if your employees are taking that survey and you got the information on that you, you know, enough, EEO standards will allow you some demographic information.

You're like, oh, wow. 60% of our black or brown people. And then you can continue with gender identity and, and other intersections. But you can break down that data by asking somebody who feels like they belong. Or do you define, or how do you define our, our mission. Ask like a qualitative question. And there's all this talking right now about AI, and I'm like, there's, we're all, I'm like, we're just at the beginning and brink of it.

So I'm, I'm, I am, I'm just laughably watching each person try and find their way to define it, but really they're trying to sell their platforms. I say that everywhere.

Russel Lolacher: Sure.

Peter Andrew Danzig: And it's going to be an ever evolving thing forever. We're not going to escape that. Just like social media and, and so I think that there's pros and cons as we've seen with that. We're just like, it's, it's like when Facebook launched, now we see the, the what psychologically. We have lots of studies on social media and its positive and negative impacts. We're gonna know that about AI, but not for, for quite some time. But eventually, hopefully, you'll also be able to use platforms and engaging questions to pull qualitative experiences and really quantify something actionable out of it, because do you belong also, yes or no is still also not going to get as far enough I'm gonna be, I'm gonna call myself in on that. It's still not gonna get as far enough to the goal of the impact we're hoping to make for inclusion.

Russel Lolacher: So, I can't believe we're wrapping up now, so... Sorry, Peter. So where does an organization go right now if they want to take those first steps into understanding where they are as an inclusive culture, especially when they can't even say the words DEI anymore based on people's preconceived notions, politics...

We still know this is vitally important. Where do we start tomorrow?

Peter Andrew Danzig: Equip don't pacify is my favorite way of saying it. And diplomatically disrupt. So equip means not mandated education, and then everybody checks a box. It means conversations. Maybe you have those mandated conversations or, or educational experiences.

But then I, I really firmly believe the best organizations actually come to the table and have dissonant conversations about it and sit with the discomfort. And diplomatic disruption for me is really important right now. Is, is, is that notion of being able to, with respect, raise your hand and say, I, I, I disagree with the concept or the imperative or the impact that we're trying to make in the way that we're going there.

And I'd like to have a conversation for some diversity of thought and engagement on how we can both meet in the middle. But remaining silent is never going to be the answer. And so I think organizations can still have conversations and how you have those conversations behind closed doors is still very private in some ways.

And I think we've felt like in the current climate in the current world that we can't have conversations at all. Like, it's just too risky. And then that just brings us back to the, I don't know, the twenties and before, even before 1800. I mean, it's al it's never going to not be risky to, to be human centered and, and honestly honest about what is happening, but best organizations I think start with a sense of diplomatic disruption. I think accountability, as you said, and to me, I think we've, we've lost the meaning behind the word integrity, but I think integrity means that you stand by your values. And for me, I think we all, all humans need to investigate our own values right now and the way that we're showing up in this world because I do think that there is not just a moment in history, but potentially movement that will need to happen.

So I think it's kind of on all of us right now to investigate the ways in which we show up at the workplace. Leaders, employees, HR professionals, but also just model citizens for one another. So I hope we start with respect. I really do.

Russel Lolacher: Thanks, Peter. That's it.