How NDAs Protect Power Instead of People 7 | 15

Summary

---

Radical Candor: Communication at Work

Episode 7 | 15: How NDAs Protect Power Instead of People
Hosts: Kim Scott, Jason Rosoff, Amy Sandler
Date: April 9, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode of the Radical Candor podcast explores how non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), non-disparagement clauses, and forced arbitration are being used in the workplace less to protect legitimate business secrets and more to shield organizational misconduct, silence whistleblowers, and perpetuate institutional betrayal. Triggered by Meta’s legal action against Sarah Wynn Williams, author of Careless People, the hosts tackle how these legal tools reinforce power imbalances, stifle employee voices, and ultimately damage individuals, teams, and society at large.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Meta Case, Careless People, and the Silencing of Whistleblowers

[01:09-04:15]

• Book Highlight: Careless People by Sarah Wynn Williams exposes misconduct at Meta (formerly Facebook).
• Meta used a legal arbitration case (enforced by an NDA) that prohibits Williams from discussing or promoting her book, thus impeding its sales and public impact.

“By silencing the author of this book...she’s making it really difficult for her to sell the book. …The strategy seems to have backfired and now everybody’s buying the book.”
— Kim Scott [03:23]

• Streisand effect—Legal efforts to suppress the book have amplified its reach.

2. NDAs and Arbitration: Intended Purpose vs. Actual Use

[04:15-07:19]

• Originally, NDAs were designed to protect technical and trade secrets, not to cover up serious wrongdoing or prevent transparency.
• Arbitration—while pitched as a more accessible legal route for employees—frequently favors employers due to systemic power imbalances.
• Forced arbitration can prevent harm from coming to light and blocks employees from accessing public legal remedies.

“The thing about arbitration is that it really tends to favor employers over employees. …They try to be neutral, but they’re not.”
— Kim Scott [05:32]

3. Emotional Targeting and Systemic Harm Inside Tech

[07:19-13:36]

• Careless People reveals Facebook targeted vulnerable teens with ads during states of psychological distress, and the company tracked activity like deleting selfies to serve beauty ads at sensitive moments.
• The hosts express outrage at targeting young people during vulnerable moments and expand the concern to all users.

“As a parent, I have to say this fills me with rage…that advertisers would agree to do it.”
— Kim Scott [07:19]

“We’ve already dealing…in a consumer society. But then to have it targeted at your most vulnerable is infuriating and enraging.”
— Amy Sandler [08:12]

• This predatory strategy is systemic, not the product of isolated bad actors.

4. The Culture of Silence, Complicity, and Institutional Betrayal

[13:36-17:42]

• Employees faced dilemmas about whether it was safe to object to questionable practices.
• Meta (then Facebook) fired a junior researcher instead of addressing the system; the company’s leadership used PR to deflect blame and denied the existence of these targeting tools.

“We’re gonna find one person who did this, even though we know this is a systemic thing and blame that one person.”
— Kim Scott [13:36]

• The leadership culture discouraged open dissent and normalized silence or rationalization.

“The temptation to basically like squash disagreements... in order to preserve harmony. …We only want to talk about the good that this thing can do.”
— Jason Rosoff [22:18]

5. Personal Reflection: When Leaders Succumb to Power

[24:29-31:50]

• Kim Scott candidly acknowledges a moment as a CEO when she required an employee to sign an NDA after a claim of a hostile work environment—a decision she now regrets as an abdication of courage and accountability.

“Power corrupts. Power had corrupted me...we were all doing the wrong thing.”
— Kim Scott [29:12]

• She underscores that leadership is about welcoming checks and balances, not silencing dissent for the sake of personal comfort or image.

6. NDAs as Tools for Perpetuating Harm

[31:50-35:23]

• NDAs can be (and are) misused to buy silence from victims and enable repeat offenders—not just in tech, but across industries.
• Even if legal, the ethical use of NDAs should be questioned—especially when they impede reporting or correcting harm.

“Any time we’re leaning on the law to take away someone’s right to ameliorate harm...it just—that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
— Jason Rosoff [32:55]

7. The Path Forward: Checks, Transparency, and New Legislation

[35:23-39:31]

• Organizations need explicit systemic checks and balances—mechanisms for employees to safely escalate complaints, involvement of boards and employee representatives.
• Legal changes such as California’s “Silence No More Act” are intended to limit NDAs used to cover up illegal or harmful acts; a national version is being considered.

“I really think that one of the design principles of our country is checks and balances. And I think that's important not only in a political system, but also in a corporate environment.”
— Kim Scott [36:45]

• The current legal and cultural landscape is shifting toward greater transparency and whistleblower protections, but much remains to be done.

“There’s increasingly...an acknowledgement that NDAs are used to cover up crimes and that that's not acceptable.”
— Kim Scott [37:24]

8. Removing Obstacles and Building Just Workplaces

[39:31-41:17]

• Companies should proactively remove communication barriers, create multiple safe reporting channels, and view correction and accountability as foundational to efficiency and good culture.

“If you can actually do it, it’s a far more efficient system than the one that we have now, which is only reacting after the harm has already been done…”
— Jason Rosoff [39:33]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “NDAs should protect business secrets, not shield bad actors from accountability.” — Kim Scott [42:17]
• “[There was] a culture of institutional betrayal, not institutional courage.” — Kim Scott [18:34]
• “Capitalism is really good at rewarding what it can measure and very bad at rewarding what it values." — Kim Scott [19:44]
• “Just because it’s possible doesn’t make it right.” — Kim Scott [33:14]

---

Practical Takeaways & Checklist

[42:17-43:42]

1. End the use of NDAs for covering up wrongdoing.

   • NDAs should never be used to hide illegal or unethical activity.

2. Eliminate forced arbitration.

   • Ensure employees have access to fair, open legal processes.

3. Build a culture of transparency and accountability.

   • Create and actively support systems for safe reporting, accountability, and real checks/balances on leadership power.

4. Support systemic change.

   • Buy and share books like Careless People to raise awareness; lobby policymakers to limit the abusive use of NDAs and forced arbitration.

---

Resource Mentions

• Careless People by Sarah Wynn Williams
• Radical Respect by Kim Scott (Chapter 7 relevant to NDAs & forced arbitration)
• Books on workplace silence: She Said, Catch and Kill, Whistleblower
• Institution Courage (Jennifer Freyd's organization and work)
• The “Silence No More Act” (California, pending national legislation)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:09] - Introduction to topic & Careless People
• [04:15] - NDAs and arbitration explained and critiqued
• [07:19] - Examples from Careless People: Emotional targeting at Meta
• [13:36] - Culture of silence and blaming the individual
• [24:29] - Kim's personal experience and regret regarding NDAs
• [36:45] - Checks, balances, and employee board representation
• [42:17] - Episode checklist and actionable steps

---

Tone & Style

The hosts maintain a candid, conversational, and empathic tone, sharing personal regrets, outrage, and hope for cultural and legal reform. The discussion is rich with practical wisdom, compassionate vulnerability, and a sense of urgency about the stakes of silencing wrongdoing in the workplace.

---

For Further Action

• Read and share Careless People by Sarah Wynn Williams
• Examine your company's use of NDAs and arbitration clauses
• Advocate for whistleblower protections and robust reporting systems
• Support reforms like the Silence No More Act, both locally and nationally

---

For more details, episode notes, or feedback, visit:
https://radicalcandor.com/podcast

---

Transcript

[Jason Rosoff]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. When you visit the doctor, you probably hand over your insurance, your ID and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info and if any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft.

[Amy Sandler]

Lifelock monitors millions of data points a second.

[Jason Rosoff]

If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[Amy Sandler]

If you used Babbel, you would Babbel's conversation based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com Spotify spelled B A B-B-E-L.com Spotify rules of restrictions may apply.

[Kim Scott]

Hello everybody and welcome to the Radical Caner Podcast. I'm Kim Scott.

[Jason Rosoff]

I'm Jason Rosoff.

[Amy Sandler]

I'm Amy Sandler. And today we're going to be tackling a critical issue that Kim, you write about in Radical Respect. What happens when organizations silence employees instead of removing the obstacles that hinder their success? What's bringing this up to mind is Meta's recent arbitration case against former employee Sarah Wynn Williams, whose new book, Careless People exposes misconduct within the company and has prompted us to really explore the broader implications of non disclosure agreements, NDAs and forced arbitration in the workplace. So let's get into it.

[Kim Scott]

Yes, this is such an important issue, I think, when I mean, non disclosure agreements are supposed to prevent people from sharing technical secrets, you know, trade secrets. They were not supposed to be used as a way to hide wrongdoing. And yet that is how they're being used, as are non disparagement agreements, which is a whole other thing. And so I think that this book is really important and I think it's not just about this book or Meta. We have a systemic problem in the workplace and workplace culture that leads leaders to try to dodge the checks and balances that our society has put in place to prevent leaders from harming individual employees or even all of us. And in the case of this book, I feel like we're all the author was harmed, but we're all being harmed. I'm excited. I read the book, the whole book. I know you all didn't necessarily read the whole book yet, but I'm excited to chat with you all about it.

[Amy Sandler]

Great. I will put the book up. Yeah, I have not yet read it. I have purchased it. And, Kim, do you want to just mention for folks why you felt so strongly about encouraging people to take a look at the book?

[Kim Scott]

Yeah. Not just take a look, but buy the book. Yeah. Because as an author, I'm very sympathetic for what's happening to this author because when you publish a book, your publisher will tell you the author sells the book. And so by silencing the author of this book from speaking about her book, she's making it really difficult for her to sell the book. I mean, of course, it seems, the strategy seems to have backfired and now everybody's buying the book.

[Jason Rosoff]

It's the Streisand effect.

[Kim Scott]

Yes, the Streisand effect in action, which is good. But let's get it to the top. Let's get it to number one on the New York Times bestseller list.

[Amy Sandler]

And this is specifically because of a legal arbitration case that's forcing her to.

[Kim Scott]

Not be able to.

[Amy Sandler]

Just wanted to make sure, for folks who weren't aware where we were in this moment.

[Kim Scott]

Yes. You're probably better at explaining, oh, I don't know.

[Amy Sandler]

I'm going to throw that one to Jason. He's our, he's our, he's our legal analyst. Even though I don't know if he has a JD But I feel like he's played the role of someone who has. I just got into law school. That's as far as I go.

[Kim Scott]

I didn't even. I did so badly on the lsat, I gave up.

[Jason Rosoff]

I think you've, you've basically covered it essentially as part of the author's employment or as part of the separation agreement. At some point, she signed something that basically said that she wasn't allowed to disclose some set of things about her experience as, as an employee. And in addition to that, there was a clause that said that disputes must be decided by arbitration as opposed to being able to go to court. And what I read about it basically said that an arbitrator and arbitration is binding, just like going to court. This is one thing that people may not understand is that it's another legal process, but the judgment of the arbitrator was that there would be irreparable harm caused by allowing Wynne Williams to actually promote the book. And so she was enjoined from doing that. She was forbidden from, from doing it.

[Kim Scott]

And the thing about arbitration is that it really tends to favor employees, employers over employees. But because the companies wind up paying these arbitration, they're not totally neutral. I think that is often they try to be, they try to be neutral and they're. But they're not.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah, it's one of those things that in theory, like arbitration, in theory is better for employees because you don't absolutely need an attorney in order to represent you. Like it could be less costly, it could take a lot less time in order to reach a resolution. But Kim, to your point, in many cases the deck is stacked against, similar to the. We've recreated the legal system in arbitration by stacking the deck against the person with less money.

[Kim Scott]

And we've, we've dodged a, the checks and balances that, that the government should be putting on the power of any one company or any one wealthy individual with the legal system. So anyway, it's a big problem. Now I want to talk about irreparable harm because seems to me reading this book that there's an awful lot of evidence that Facebook has done irreparable harm to a bunch of us. So we can't read the whole book, but I'd love to just share a couple of passages from a chapter towards the end of the book called emotional targeting and we can talk about those and then we can talk about NDAs and forced arbitration and non disparagement agreements and why it's a problem, why these things are problems. How does that sound?

[Amy Sandler]

That's sounds good.

[Kim Scott]

All right, I'm going to jump in. In April 2017, a confidential document is leaked that reveals Facebook is offering advertisers the opportunity to target 13 to 17 year olds across its platform, including Instagram, during moments of psychological vulnerability when they feel, quote, unquote, worthless, insecure, stressed, defeated, anxious, stupid, useless and like a failure. Or to target them when they're worried about their bodies and thinking of losing weight, basically when a teen is in a fragile emotional state. As a parent, I have to say this fills me with rage that they would offer this or that advertisers would agree to do it. So what, so how, what do you all think?

[Amy Sandler]

Yeah, I am not a parent, but I am someone who's been a teenager. I think we've all been teenagers. And I can just speak to my own sort of journey around food and body and psychology. And certainly I was obsessed with television and consuming mass media, but it was not targeted individually to me based on my state. And so it feels like we're already dealing, you know, in a consumer society. But then to have it targeted at your most vulnerable is infuriating and enraging. So that's my emotional, like, personal reaction to it. And then on behalf of our most vulnerable, like at the most vulnerable moment, I find it enraging.

[Kim Scott]

Yes.

[Amy Sandler]

Jason, do you have, can you bring us down from our rage?

[Jason Rosoff]

I, I don't, I don't think so. I, I think, I think that it is, it is, it's the right, I mean, like, I think rage is the, is the right reaction to something like this. I, I. One of the most difficult parts of being alive today for people who are connected in some way, shape or form to, to the Internet is dealing with the bombardment of information that is like constantly coming at, coming at us. Like we just aren't made for it. We haven't developed the skills to deal with it. And then to throw into that mix, like, not only is it just completely overwhelming and hard to parse, but we're using the information that we can gather about someone to inject into that stream of difficult to parse information. Essentially like poison, you know what I'm saying? Like, like, like, like it's bad. So it was like, it was already bad.

[Amy Sandler]

Yeah.

[Jason Rosoff]

And then it was like we have an. Now we're just make it worse.

[Kim Scott]

It's more precisely bad.

[Jason Rosoff]

Exactly.

[Amy Sandler]

Yeah. The amplification of it.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah.

[Jason Rosoff]

I mean, this is commonly referred to like as dark patterns. Right. That there are these dark patterns in how people design software that hook into our brains at a very sort of close to the metal, like close to the hardware.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah.

[Jason Rosoff]

And take advantage of various vulnerabilities that humans, being human beings, have to. When you feel sad, upset, worthless or whatever, we're more susceptible to messaging about that same thing.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah. And by the way, it's not only teenagers who have these feelings, like, I have all that. We all, we, we all do. I mean, we want to protect our children, but we should also protect all of our, you know, protect all of us. And so the thing, one of the things about this book that read very credible because I can imagine, like having worked at a big tech company, like, you can't believe this is happening. And then you look into it and they find at first they think maybe this is just a one off bad actor. And then as they look into it, they find this is systemic. So I'll read another passage. At first we think the leaked document is one Facebook made, made to pitch a gum manufacturer targeting teens during vulnerable emotional states. Then eventually the team realizes, no, the one that got leaked was from a bank. So now they're finding a bunch of these. There are obviously many deaths like this. So like this is not, this is systemic. This is not just kind of a one off thing. Facebook does work for a beauty product company tracking when 13 to 17 year old girls delete selfies so it can serve a beauty ad to them at that moment. We don't know what happens to young teen girls when they're targeted with beauty advertisements after deleting a selfie. Nothing good. There's a reason why you erase something from existence, why a teen girl feels that it can't be shared. And surely Facebook shouldn't be using that moment to bombard them with extreme weight loss ads or beauty industry ads or whatever else they push on. Teens feeling vulnerable. The weird thing is that the rest of our Facebook coworkers seem unbothered by.

[Jason Rosoff]

This reactions, like a moment of, of empathy for, for other, for other Facebook workers. Like, I suspect, as is the case, when there are a lot of like questionable slash bad things happening around you, it becomes difficult to like tune your reaction to, to these events appropriately.

[Kim Scott]

And I bet a lot of them were horrified.

[Jason Rosoff]

Correct. And then, and then there's this also this question of like, what's it okay to express? Right? Like, do you feel like it's safe to express your horror at this particular thing? Or you feel like if you say you're horrified that you're taking some other kind of risk with your job or career or whatever else.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah.

[Jason Rosoff]

And at the same time, like, I think, yeah, it's just, it's just hard, I think, to be in a situation where you feel like you have uncovered something that is so obviously horrifying or obviously awful and then to have the reaction, like a sort of non plus sort of reaction from the people around you of like, well, you know, it's just. That's Tuesday for you.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah. So here's another moment of empathy for, for Facebook then Facebook now meta employees. What does Facebook do about this? A junior researcher in Australia is fired for making that deck, even though lots of people are obviously making these decks. I'm. Now I'm reading. Even though that poor researcher was most likely just doing what her bosses wanted, she's just another nameless young woman who was treated as cannon fodder by, by the company. Like I. And that, that rings so true to me. Like, we're gonna find one person who did this, even though we know this is a systemic thing and blame that one person.

[Amy Sandler]

What was coming up, Kim, as you were asking that question and reading about it, was Even just like the Milgram experiment of just like, when people are following rules and feeling like a, my boss told me to do this, so it must be okay because this is my boss. Right. Or this is the rule. And then to what Jason was saying, do I feel safe speaking up against it? So even, you know, people might have had moral concerns, but was there the safety and all of those questions about being a whistleblower. So I'm just thinking, as people are listening to this, the places that we might be in, whether we're the junior researcher feeling like, do I have the power to speak up? And the person who's forcing the junior researcher to do that work.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah, we're not forcing them. But like, this is, like this kind of stuff gets normalized. And when you're young and early in your career and this is what everyone around you is doing, like, maybe you haven't asked the questions and it's not. You've been put in a difficult situation and it is the job of your leadership to lead, not to blame you for something that is a systemic problem that they have created. But firing. It turns out that firing that one junior assistant doesn't solve all the problems. They. Facebook has to come out with more sort of PR to do damage control. And so they offer another statement that this author says is a flat out lie. Facebook does not offer tools to target people based on their emotional state, even though obviously they do. And then after that statement comes out, the author goes on to say, one of the top. And now I'm reading again. One of the top ad executives for Australia calls me late one night to complain. Why are we putting out statements like this? He wants to know. This is the business, Sarah. We're proud of this. We shout this from the rooftops. This is what puts money in all our pockets. And these statements make it look like it's something nefarious. So now all of a sudden, somebody is getting mad. Somebody else at Facebook is getting mad at her for distancing the company from what he's selling. It's. It's outrageous.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah. I think that I. It's a form of. Of rationalization that I. That I feel like happens a lot in. In tech in particular, which is we. There's a tendency to look at the potential of something to, like, be very good and to weigh that much more heavily than the actual harm that the thing is doing right now.

[Kim Scott]

Yes.

[Jason Rosoff]

Like, that is. That is a thing that gets repeated over and over and over again. It's sort of the history of all technological advancements. As we like over oversell the good. And I think part of what we're saying is that why does it have to be one or the other? It's a false dichotomy. Like, why can't we address the harm that the thing is doing and realize the upside potential. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And when you create an environment that makes it seem like it's one or the other, then you wind up with a, you know, a harm perpetuating machine.

[Kim Scott]

Yes.

[Jason Rosoff]

Because there's nothing, there's no brakes on the, on the thing, you know what I'm saying? There's nothing to actually slow it down and stop it from doing the harm until. And that's why we wind up with a book like this, which is many years later, a set of well documented allegations of like all of this wrongdoing over and over and over again, this repeated pattern of wrongdoing. And, and I feel like you're what you say in radical respect, Kim, which is like the reason why this seems so expensive to deal with and why, I mean, who knows what Meta's reasons are for trying to enforce this particular non disclosure agreement are what their precise reasons are. But like, the problem is the system is set up wrong. It was impossible to talk about these things and to deal with them and to say, hey, wait a second, actually this is really harmful. Like, can we, why don't we have a conversation? Like that wasn't possible.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah, there was a culture of institutional betrayal, not institutional courage.

[Amy Sandler]

And also, Kim, what's coming up is when we've had some conversations about this, when we were in business school and everything that mattered, the only thing that mattered was the shareholder and maximizing wealth for the shareholder. So it goes back to your measurement problem because the passage that you are reading from to continue, this person, this top ad executive, says he's out there every day promoting the precision of these tools that hoover up so much data and insight on and off Facebook so it can deliver the right ad at the right time to the right user. And this is what headquarters is saying to the public. Quote, how do I explain this? He asks. And 13 to 17 year olds quote, that's a very important audience. Advertisers really want to reach them and we have them. We're pretending we don't do this. And so for me, when I read that, that's basically about you're being, you're optimizing just for those metrics, but you're not measuring harm. Which I think is what Jason Is like, there's no metric of harm caused, and that's why the incentives, I think, are so misaligned.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah, totally agree with that. It's such an important. Like, I did write this novel called the Measurement Problem. Dust it off. The Measurement Problem, which is all about, like, you know, capitalism is really good at rewarding what it can measure and very bad at rewarding what it values. Like our teenagers, our children. You know, like, how do we. How do we bake that into the metrics? Also, Jason, going back to what you're saying about optimism, so careless people, is a quote from the Great Gatsby. And it just so happens my son just read the Great Gatsby and is writing a paper about it. I was reading his paper yesterday, and I'm like, oh, my God. And the paper he's writing is about how we have this sort of rosy view of the past as Americans, and that then sort of pushes us to have this glorious view of the future and to ignore the present reality that we're in. I'm like, that. That is what is happening here. That is exactly what is happening here is a refusal, you know, to admit, oh, Daisy loves Tom and married him, and therefore I cannot be married to her now. I'm referring back to Great Gatsby.

[Jason Rosoff]

Great Gatsby, yeah. I think there's just, like, so many problems, it feels like, to me, so many problems in. In human. In a group of humans is the unwillingness to. To. To talk precisely about what is really happening.

[Kim Scott]

Yes, to.

[Jason Rosoff]

To. To, like, give. To put real clear, unambiguous words. To, like, what. What is actually happening. Like, so many problems are. Are rooted in. In either an unwillingness or a fear of. Of doing exactly that. And I think this is a great example of. It was literally not okay to say the word. You know what I'm saying? Like, the. There was a. The complaint that was being raised by the executive that we were just quoting from the book was basically like. Like, no, you're saying this is bad. And I'm saying it's not even okay to say that this is bad. This is so good that you can't disparage it. You cannot say that there's something wrong with this, because this is what puts all the money in our pockets. It's. It's literally. I don't know, like, that. That sort of like.

[Kim Scott]

Well, it was. I mean, it was. I'm sure that the executive who said that to her was in a hard place. He's like, I'm out here selling this and you're out there telling the press, I'm not sell. Like what are my customers gonna.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah, yeah. And I guess what I'm saying is like the, the, the temptation to basically like squash disagreements, like any sort of disagreement. And I, I know we're talking about the public statement versus what was privately actually happening, but like that, that effort to squash disagreement in order to preserve harmony. You know what I'm saying?

[Kim Scott]

Like, yeah, only good news.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah, only good news for me. Only good news for the customers. Like we only want to talk about the good that this thing can do. It is like the source of a lot of not intentional, unintentional evil in the world. Right. Cause you're not thinking about the consequences of the actions. You're making it impossible.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah.

[Amy Sandler]

So you know that feeling when you're doom scrolling and suddenly it is an hour later and you feel even worse. I have been there. But lately I've been swapping that time for something way more energizing. Masterclass. These are not your average online classes. This is Robin Roberts teaching effective and authentic communic Chris Voss teaching you how to win any negotiation. And our very own Kim Scott teaching you how to use Radical Candor to have those tough conversations you've been putting off. Whether I am in between meetings or just swinging a string toy for my cat, I pop into the app, I soak up real insights that I can apply immediately. And I'm not alone. 83% of members have used what they learned to improve their lives. With plans Starting at just $10 a month billed annually and over 200 classes to CH from Masterclass is a no brainer. So get an additional 15% off any annual membership [e-mail] radical. That's masterclass.com radical. For an additional 15% off, go learn something that'll change your day and maybe your life.

[Kim Scott]

So let's talk a little bit. Let's. Let's take a step back away from the book and talk about hopefully these kinds of things are not happening at your company and Kim, before we do.

[Amy Sandler]

Because I do want to get there, I just want to ask something that's on my mind. So I imagine it might be on some other folks mind before we sort of shift off from Facebook meta, which is that, you know, obviously when you first wrote Radical Candor, one of the stories, you know, you've worked closely with Sheryl Sandberg. So I just wanted to give you a chance to kind of reflect on that relationship and how that might inform, you know, what you're sharing now.

[Kim Scott]

Yes. Bob Sutton asked me this on LinkedIn over the weekend. BOB Sutton, AUTHOR OF the no Asshole Rule and, you know, my response is it's. There's part of me that's tempted to remain silent about how important I think this book is out of loyalty to Cheryl. But I don't think that's actually loyal to Cheryl. I mean, I will say, for the record, Cheryl was a great boss. She hired me at a time when I was desperate, actually, in my career. And I'll be forever grateful to her for the. For the things I learned from her and for the role that she played in my career. So there's that. But I don't think it does her any good. I don't think it's an act of loyalty to ignore that meta, where she no longer works, is doing this to this author and trying to cover up the harm that they're doing, not only to the author, but to each and every one of us. And so it's in that spirit that I want to talk about this book. There's all kinds of sort of. I don't know how to even characterize them. There's all kinds of negative comments about her in the book, but I think that that's not a reason not to read the book.

[Amy Sandler]

I really appreciate your thoughtfulness and, you know, if you're open to it, just because I can imagine we're going to get into some stories, but where you felt like you, you know, you didn't step up, and you might have done things a little differently, but also extending yourself some. Some compassion for choices you made. Do you think part of what motivates you to speak up is because of moments when you maybe have been more reluctant to share your voice or. I just want to acknowledge that you said it might have been easier not to. To say something right now?

[Kim Scott]

Yes. I mean, I. Look, I. There have been a bunch of times in my career, and I write about many of them in radical respect, where I didn't speak up. And in retrospect, I wish I had spoken up. And very often the reason I didn't speak up was that there might be a cost to me of not speaking up. I mean, of speaking up. And I think it's important to decide and to try to decide before you're in the heat of the moment when you're gonna. Where your line is, when you're gonna speak up, even if it does cost you something. Because, you know, the cost to me of not speaking up, like in one instance that I'm thinking of, was probably A few million dollars, you know, and in retrospect, I should have said something and risks getting fired and not getting. But you know, the, the temptation not to say, like, it gets bigger. Like I, how many of us would walk away from billions of dollars? You know, it's harder. I want to, I want to acknowledge that there is some, that there's some very human difficulty. And you know, I don't know what I would do if, if something bad was happening and my, you know, my silence was going to buy me a billion dollars. I like to think I would walk away and say the thing. I can't. I believe I would. But can I say I'm sure? No. I mean, I don't think any of us are sure what we would do in, in that moment. And I, and I, and I also want to say that our economic system, like, rewards people for like the measurement problem is a big problem. Yep.

[Amy Sandler]

Well, it's a great, you know, and heartfelt reflection, I think, for all of us. I love that guidance of like really thinking for yourself in this moment, like, where are my lines? So that I can kind of hold myself accountable. I think it might be interesting too, just to have almost a buddy in that process to kind of help you hold yourself accountable. And I know you had your own story, Kim, around NDAs, around non disclosure agreements. So did you want to bring that one up?

[Kim Scott]

So I will, I will. I believe NDAs are wrong. I'm enormously grateful to Ifeoma, Azoma and others who worked on the Silence no more act, which we'll talk more about in a second. But I will also acknowledge that I one time asked an employee to sign an NDA. And this was one of the, this was like one of those moments in my career that I think about all the time. So I had become a. I had started a company and I was the co founder and CEO. This is not radical candor. This was many years ago. And I did, I sort of believed in this moment. And we've talked about this before, I believed in this moment. Like all this other BS that happened at all these other terrible companies where I worked will not happen when I'm in charge because I have good intentions, you know, and of course it did happen. And there was, there was an employee who felt that she was experiencing a hostile work environment and, and she was going to sue the company for the experiences that she had had. Company, you know, and I did not think any company where I was in charge would create a hostile work environment or, or any. Anyone, you know, most Especially for a woman, that. That was. Gender was the thing that I was most focused on having experienced myself. And rather than stopping and saying, you know, I should really look at what's going wrong here at this company that I've started, I dismissed her claims out of hand, paid her some amount of money, and made her sign an NDA, which was the advice that my lawyer, who was also a woman, by the way, gave. And so I want to say, like, power corrupts. Power had corrupted me. Power had corrupted the attorney, like we were all doing. We were all doing the wrong thing. And it's easy when you are in a. If, when you're in a position of power and you can silence other people, it's tempting to do it, especially if they're saying something about you and your company that you would rather not be true. And so that was me, you know, not. Not sort of being courageous, not creating an organization that exemplified institutional courage, but instead succumbing to institutional betrayal. And I'm afraid I'm not the only leader who has done that.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah, I'm certain. I'm certain. I'm absolutely certain that you're. You're not. I think going back to what you said at the very top of the podcast, which is like, that the. These things are being used for, you know. Well, I, I'm. I'm sure that there's a long history of using NDAs for not disclosing things other than techno technological secrets that I'm ignorant of. But I will say, like, the, the idea that you can hide harm behind an NDA, like, essentially that someone can trade their rights to. To like, address a wrong that was done to them for, you know, some. In some cases, for nothing. Like, literally, like, they. They. They just bully people into signing these agreements. Yeah, there's no.

[Kim Scott]

You can't quit until. I had one person come to me and her. His. It was actually a man. His employer was saying, you can't quit until you sign this NDA. I'm like, that is a pile of. Meredith.

[Jason Rosoff]

I. I think, like, any time we're. We're leaning on the law to take away someone's right to. To, you know, ameliorate harm. Like, even if it's legal, as you say, Kim, it just. That doesn't mean it's right. It's just some. Sometimes the law is an ass.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah.

[Jason Rosoff]

Just because, like, just because it's.

[Kim Scott]

That may be our title. The law is an ass.

[Jason Rosoff]

Just because it's possible doesn't. Doesn't make. Doesn't make it Right. And I think to your point, it's often in reaction. So the reason why it's easy to imagine yourself in the situation that you described finding yourself in and that many other leaders have found themselves in over time is because you didn't plan for the possibility that under your, you know, guidance, an organization could create a hostile work environment for. For somebody. Like, you didn't plan for that possibility because you didn't plan for it, then you were forced to react to what was happening as opposed to thoughtfully respond to the situation. And, and in. In those moments, it can be very easy to sort of, like, try to defend, you know what I'm saying? To try. Try to carve out some defensible space as opposed to, like, doing the right thing writ large.

[Kim Scott]

I mean, I was unwilling to believe it. I was unwilling to notice it because I was so convinced that I'm a good person. Like, there are a few. Well, there's all kinds of dangerous words, but I am a good person. Like, as opposed to I'm trying to be good. And sometimes I do bad things. Like, we really need to question ourselves anytime where we say I'm a good person. Like, yes, I hope you are, but that doesn't mean you're doing good things. You know, as my son's baseball coach said, you can't do right if you don't know what you're doing wrong. And if you're so convinced that you are so good that you could never do anything wrong, you're gonna do some really bad things.

[Amy Sandler]

One of the things, Kim, as you're bringing that up and what Jason was saying just around kind of checks and balances. So for folks who are listening, like, if you were to have kind of could have a reset, and obviously time has changed, laws have changed. So, you know, maybe first of all, just paint a picture of where are we in the legal landscape? You mentioned the silence. No more act in 2022. But what are some things that leaders should be aware of, of, like where the landscape is and how can they kind of intentionally create more checks and balances so that, you know, they can be more intentional?

[Kim Scott]

If I could go back in time, one of the things I would have done is made it very clear that if. If you have a problem with the way that Kim has responded to something, it is. It is expected that you'll go to Kim's co founder and talk to him about it. And if both Kim and our co founder are not doing the right thing, it is expected and okay for you to go and talk to the board about what is going wrong. And I think in an ideal world, the board holds the CEO of the company accountable, but somebody needs to be holding the board accountable. And figuring that out, I think is also really important for, for leaders to do. And, and one creative idea that some companies have done is they'll have a representative of the employees, rank and file employees on the board who, who is holding the chair of the board accountable for representing the interest of, of individual employees at the company. So you want. I just, I really, I think that one of the things that one of the design principles of our country is checks and balances. And I think that's important not only in a political system, but also in a corporate environment. Right.

[Amy Sandler]

And then just for, you know, folks who maybe aren't as aware you had talked about the Silence no more act in 2022, there's obviously a bunch of books that have come out on this topic. We've had Susan Fowler Righetti, the uber whistleblower and author of Whistleblower on this podcast. But whether it's books like she Said by Jodi Cantor and Megan Tuohy, if I hopefully got that right, Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow, just really bringing up how NDAs can actually enable repeat offenders. So just from your own both research and also, I know you've talked to so many folks as you put together radical respect and have been putting it out in the world. What do you want to share about the kind of current legal landscape?

[Kim Scott]

Well, I think there's increasingly, there's an acknowledgement that NDAs are used to cover up crimes and that that's not acceptable. And there are, it's been the Silence no More act was passed in California, but there's a national version of that that is being considered. I mean, who knows what's happening in this environment with, with that. But I, I think increasingly people understand there's a common sense like this, this sort of, you can't talk about what happened at this company is, is a way of, of silencing people about things that they should speak up about.

[Jason Rosoff]

There's a, a series of like, almost feels like interlocking human challenges that make it really, really important to like, grease the wheels of the communication when it comes to wrongdoing. Because one, it's hard enough just to criticize somebody for doing bad work. Like, yeah, like, like that's hard. We talk to leaders all the time where it's like, I don't, how do I tell this person that they didn't, you know, that the Presentation was, there's.

[Kim Scott]

Typos and you know, like, spinach in your teeth is one thing.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah. So that's, that's already hard. And then it's like in many situations you're like criticizing your boss, like that we're describing here. You're criticizing your, your, your boss or the company for creating an environment that, that like, created the harm that that was done, that was done to you. So that's like extra difficult like, to figure out how, how you would do that. And, and since I, I think the most people actually want to make a more efficient system right now, the perception is it's much more efficient to sort of like silence everybody than it is to actually to, to solve the problem. But I feel like the case of careless people is a good example of why that's just not true. It is not more efficient. It would have been far more efficient to have a system where it was easy to actually have these conversations and address them.

[Kim Scott]

Yeah.

[Jason Rosoff]

And so like, the idea is like, it's actually a win win. You're not doing this for employees, although it is a benefit to employees to have to remove any obstacles that might exist to them being able to report bad behavior. But, and you're not just. And it's not just because you're trying to be a good person. It's because, like, if you can actually do it, it's a far more efficient system than the one that we have now, which is only reacting after the harm has already been done and productivity has already been lost. And that person, you know what I'm saying? Like, all of the damage is done and now you're silencing the person. We're treating that like that's as though that's somehow more efficient than simply making.

[Kim Scott]

It, fixing the problem. It's like, imagine if it were, if instead of having a system where you identified and fixed bugs, you like, buried them. Like your product wouldn't work very well and your company won't work very well if you do that for the way the company works.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yeah, I mean, I think that that's actually a really good example since a lot of people can sort of imagine, like everybody's experienced frustration with like a product not working the way that, that we, that they want it to or that they expect it to. We just don't talk about companies in the same way, which I think is a, is a failure of imagination to say, like, this is a designed object. Like this company and the culture that we're operating in is designed and it. And we're Constantly communicating about how it should work. And either we're meeting the user, in this case, the employees and customers expectations, or we're not meeting their expectations. And wouldn't it be better, wouldn't it be more, Wouldn't everybody be happier if we could more consistently actually meet the needs and expectations of not just our customers or our shareholders, but also our employees?

[Kim Scott]

Yeah. I mean, the COVID up is always worse for the crime or exacerbates the crime in any case. And if cover up is allowed to go on endlessly, in the end, it's a disaster. I mean, institutional betrayal is bad for those who get betrayed, but it ultimately betrays the institution itself.

[Jason Rosoff]

Yep.

[Kim Scott]

This is from Jennifer Fried, who's. Who's one of my favorite people, a great and clear thinker about these things.

[Amy Sandler]

And Jennifer Fry is the author of Institutional Courage. Is that correct?

[Kim Scott]

There's an organization called Institutional Courage. Okay. She. She wrote a book. She's written several books, which we'll put in the speakers.

[Amy Sandler]

Right, Great. We'll put that in the show notes. So now it is time for our checklist. And these are tips to put Radical Candor, Radical Respect, and creating more just workplaces into practice. Right away.

[Kim Scott]

All right, tip number one, end the use of NDAs for covering up wrongdoing. NDAs should protect business secrets, not shield bad actors from accountability.

[Amy Sandler]

Tip number two, eliminate forced arbitration. Allow employees access to fair legal processes instead of private company paid arbitrators. You can read lots more about how to Eliminate NDAs Enforced Arbitration in Chapter 7 of Radical Respect. Get it wherever books are sold.

[Jason Rosoff]

Tip number three, build a culture of transparency and accountability. Ensure there are multiple safe ways for employees to report misconduct and take action when issues arise. Build management systems that put checks and balances on the power of leaders and ensure that they can be held accountable for their behavior and their results. Once again. You can learn how to do this in chapter seven of Radical Respect.

[Kim Scott]

And tip number four, if you want to not only buy copies of this book, but send them to your senator, your representatives, your state and federal leaders. Best Bookstore. We'll make that happen for you. We'll drop a link into the show notes.

[Amy Sandler]

All right, so that is copies of Careless People by Sarah Wynn Williams. And it's Best as in B E S T. Yes.

[Kim Scott]

Best Bookstore.

[Amy Sandler]

Best Bookstore.

[Kim Scott]

It is the Best books. One of the best bookstores I love.

[Jason Rosoff]

All Indefinite Truth and Marketing.

[Amy Sandler]

Yes.

[Kim Scott]

Yes.

[Amy Sandler]

All right, well, if you want to see the show notes, go to radicalcandor.com podcast praise in public and Criticize in Private so if you like what you hear, please do rate and review us wherever you listen to your podcasts. And of course, if you've got feedback for us, including especially Criticism, email us podcastadicalcandor.com Bye for now.

[Kim Scott]

Thanks everyone.

[Jason Rosoff]

Take care.

[Amy Sandler]

The Radical Candor podcast is based on the book Radical Be a kick ass Boss without losing your Humanity by Kim Scott. Episodes are written and produced by Brandy Neal with script editing by Me, Amy Sandler. The show features Radical Candor co founders Kim Scott and Jason Rosoff and is hosted by Me still Amy Sandler. Nick K Me is our audio engineer. The Radical Candor podcast theme music was composed by Cliff Goldmacher. Follow us on LinkedIn Radical Candor the company and visit [e-mail].

[Kim Scott]

Starting a business.

[Jason Rosoff]

Can seem like a daunting task unless.

[Amy Sandler]

You have a partner like Shopify.

[Kim Scott]

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business.

[Amy Sandler]

From designing a website to marketing to.

[Jason Rosoff]

Selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need.

[Kim Scott]

There's a reason millions of companies like.

[Amy Sandler]

Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them.

[Jason Rosoff]

With Shopify on your side, turn your.

[Kim Scott]

Big business idea into Sign up for.

[Jason Rosoff]

Your $1 per month [e-mail] specialoffer.