Shadows of Superpowers (Part 2)

Nikhyl: Hello everyone. Welcome to The Skip podcast. My name is Nikhyl Singhal and this episode is actually part two of one of my favorite topics, which is the shadows of superpowers. You know, the topic was introduced in Lenny's podcast and then I devoted episode 13 of the podcast just to this concept that your development areas actually sit under your greatest strengths, and perhaps not all of your development areas, but maybe the trickiest the most subtle.

They're kind of camped out underneath them. And the challenge is that the more senior you are, the harder it is for you to see them. And the more your superpowers are on display, and the stronger they become, the more challenging it is to adjust your development areas. Because the challenge that you have is that you get all of this great positive feedback on your strengths that your work identity becomes tied to those strengths.

And then when you find out that these development areas exist, addressing them is quite challenging because changing them means you are pulling back on your strengths, your superpowers, and in some way your identity is forced to transform if you were to address these development areas. So it's a very complicated and subtle challenge to improve.

But as I've noted, light doesn't exist without darkness. So this balance of adjusting your strengths so that you can actually improve your development areas is a constant battle, one that I've had to go through. Many of the people that I work with have had to go through, and I'm excited about sharing some examples today of how I coach this and how we address this.

So as we go through these deeper examples, I want you to keep a few things in mind. One is these you don't have to be the person being coached. It might be your friends, it might be your boss, it might be other leaders at the company, the founders.

It might be peers. It might be people in your team, or it might be your customers, your partners, even your partner at home or your kids. These sort of superpower shadows really apply very universally and very broadly, and certainly beyond what I would call product management or even technology. So keep this in mind as it's a powerful conversation to have with yourself and perhaps with those that you are close with as you're helping them through their professional and perhaps even their personal journey.

The second thing is I always think about how you assess talent, because many of you are in interviews either on the receiving side or you are interviewing to build out your own team. And sometimes you quickly assess that a person's qualified because they're great managers or great executors, or perhaps they have great expertise in a domain.

And then the challenge that you face is, how to assess the quality of their expertise. Sometimes I use this technique around understanding, well, if you're strong here, are you also strong in the shadow? Because when you first develop an expertise, it sort of comes with the substantive shadow. And then as you work through things and develop, you address those shadows that come from those strengths.

And so use this to interview and assess talent and perhaps come up with the right questions to be able to determine where a person is on their journey.

Okay, let's get to the first example I'm going to give you, again, these are fictitious. But real meaning fictitious in the sense that they don't represent a single actual person. They represent someone that I have encountered, and it's sort of an aggregation of a challenge that I've seen and helped coach and just to be very open with all of you as listeners.

Nearly all of them are personal challenges that I've struggled with that some of which have been very, very difficult to both hear and certainly address and some that I'm working through right now.

So by using these very specific examples, I think it'll bring some color to some of the challenges and some of the coaching that we do to get people out of these really tricky and very nuanced situations.

Okay, so let's say Martin was to come to me, Martin suggests to me that, Hey, you know, I'm exceptionally detail oriented and can get a ton of stuff done. I'm a clear master of execution and owning things all the way out the door. So this is your proverbial expert at process or growth or you know, more broadly execution. And the shadow that Martin faces, the feedback that he's been getting, that he's been pulling together, perhaps from his manager or perhaps from other peers, is that, you know, I focus too much on the details and fail to zoom back.

And ensure everyone is comfortable with the direction. They're examples where we hit our dates and even our goals, but then killed the project. Moreover, I also push myself and the team too hard, and some of the feedback says I'm just too intense. So what Martin's hearing is that he gets too in the details, gets too fixated on getting things out the door or hitting the milestone. And as a result, the team doesn't feel like they're part of the journey.

They feel like they're working for Martin, perhaps. Maybe that's not his role, and that he's an intense, intense dude getting things out the door. And so in some ways, they feel a little ragged. And they don't feel always bought [00:06:00] in, but he's so manic about getting that milestone, getting that execution that they don't feel like they're part of this journey.

You know, Martin's perspective on this is that, look, I collaborate and delegate to people whom I trust and are competent. But when I don't trust, I won't risk the project and shouldn't strategy be locked down before we build something? Why am I getting feedback? That I need to also think about the strategy when my role is really to drive execution and, and frankly, just to be candid, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen when it's go time, you know who to call.

But I'm frustrated that this strength of getting things done is now being held up as my weakness. Now this is a pretty typical example of shadows and superpowers. The reason why Martin is going to struggle making this adjustment is that it's going to require him to take something off his strength in order to develop his weakness. Bringing people along is a waste because it's going to end up slowing them down and thinking strategically. Like, look, at some point you just have to commit and go. So this is the challenge that, you know, Martin is coming to me with and you know, he's frustrated.

In some cases he might be working through this for 5, 6, 7 years. He might have hit a plateau and he might be stuck and frankly not that excited about addressing it. If I'm going to come to him and say, oh, no, no, what you need to do is become slower. What you need to do is be less intense. He's not going to appreciate that advice.

So the advice here is complex, but it starts with this notion that Martin's identity is wrapped up in his ability to hit his milestones. And you know, as such, he has a very high bar on what his expectations is for himself, and it's carrying over to the expectations he has in others and to the team. But ultimately, if you zoom back, leadership is not necessarily getting an A because they hit a milestone.

Leadership is getting an A for execution and for strategy. And the control that Martin wants to have on execution sometimes starves out the ability for the strategy to be successful, meaning that if you're in the process of building something and you learn that maybe what you're building is incorrect, you want to have the conversation, you want to have dissenting a point of view. You need a diverse team to be able to look at things and make decisions. It doesn't mean that you need to slow down. It means you have to at least take a moment to ensure that the energy being spent is being spent in the right direction. And if you're in this mode where everyone is in this sort of lean-back, he's going to take on more and more and more responsibility for the outcome, and people are going to look at that and say, well, I'm not sure I want to be arguing with this guy, even though I think we're building perhaps the wrong thing.

Or if we were to adjust, or if we were to put a different person on it, or maybe leverage our team differently, we get a better outcome. And so without having the conversation, you aren't able to even understand if the execution is flawed. And Martin, to some extent, has connected the execution of the project with his personal identity, and as such, he's not giving a lot of space for folks to really engage and be part of the outcome in the success of the project.

So I have three suggestions for Martin. One is I want Martin to pull back a bit. I think that his intensity of hitting the milestone is starving out. The opportunity for people to participate, for people to influence and perhaps for better ideas to come in.

I think that his tightly holding the execution is preventing that inclusivity. Second, I want him to delegate more. I want him to make sure that the project is collectively owned and the outcome is collectively owned. Now, Martin's feedback is, but I've got some bozos on the project. I've got some folks that I don't think would actually do a good job.

Well, I think that the idea is if you run a positive but inclusive process, it doesn't mean that you hand it to your quote unquote bozo and expect that to fail. What you instead need to do is you need to say, hey, I have this expectation. And when it comes up short, you escalate that to leadership and say, look, we want to be able to hit this milestone.

Here's what needs to happen. I have made it clear to this individual what our expectations are, and we're not quite getting there. Help me figure out what we need to do. Nobody wants to be part of a losing team, but if you don't give people the feedback and if you don't run it in a positive less adversarial perspective, less personal attacks on the individuals, then people will want to join your team. Hitting the milestone is almost part of Martin's identity. [00:11:00] So Martin needs to recognize that it might take a little bit more time to get to the outcome if he includes others.

And the third thing is that Martin needs a hobby, which sounds hilarious, but I want to just explain what I mean by that. Martin's putting all of his attention into nailing this milestone, this project, and owning that outcome. It's almost intertwined with his ego. If Martin had other things that he was able to control, perhaps he would spend a little less time trying to control the outcome at work.

And so when you take just a bit off of work, when you recognize that look, projects are going to come and go, and ultimately the project when we launch is going to have to change. And that change is going to require a bunch of people to be part of that process. And if those people don't feel like it's their show, but it's the Martin show, they're not going to be very excited about being part of that journey.

And so in some ways, by Martin saying, look, I really have this great project on the side that I work on and this thing, I do have control and ownership, and it's kind of my joy. And this work thing is a work thing, and I'm very, very committed to seeing it forward. But I'm committed for the team to own this success.

I'm committing for it to land in the most effective way possible, but ultimately, if we take a few extra weeks to land it, but I have a higher quality team and a better strategy. That's actually a better mark than just owning the date and being, yes, sir, right away, sir. And then ultimately delivering something that no one else feels like they owned and were part of.

Okay. Hopefully that makes sense. Again, this is subtle and complicated work, but when you start seeding these ideas in the mind of Martin, if Martin is open to change, Martin will start trying this at work. And what he will find is that people will be very, very excited to be part of the journey when they didn't feel like they were part of before. And the more he gets this positive feedback, the more it's self-reinforcing.

So let's take a twist on the previous example. Jackie comes to me with almost the same challenge that Martin had, but instead of being tightly held on execution, Jackie is tightly held on her product opinions or her strategies. So when you have a strength in crafting or you're perhaps an entrepreneur, you are very opinionated on where things should go.

In Jackie's case is, look, I have these great opinions and people respect those opinions, and it's really caused me to move into leadership. But I'm getting feedback that I don't bring people along. And sometimes it's hard to explain to folks why we need to go in certain places, but instead of being celebrated for the accuracy and the insight that I bring, I'm getting criticized, especially as I've become more and more senior that I'm not collaborative and I don't get it because shouldn't we just look at the results of my opinion and how I've been able to shape the direction and use that as evidence of why more and more people should listen to me.

Now my response to Jackie is similar to Martin in that this is pretty risky because in Martin's case, the risk was if he executes on something that doesn't work, you don't get a lot of points. In Jackie's case, the more senior one is the harder the problems and the opinions are to get right. And so just because you were right in the past doesn't mean you'll be right in the future.

But if people don't feel like they're part of the decision, then the moment that you come up short, they will come out of the woodwork to essentially criticize, accuse, and potentially exit you. No, because you're known for being accurate, but you can only be accurate so far. In some ways your desire to own the outcome and be the opinion maker has made you into a bit of a dictator.

You are strongly held with strong beliefs. Right, and, and the combination is a big challenge. And your idea that, look, we should just pick a direction and move quickly, I think is just code for you being a dictator. You not really wanting to go to the effort of explaining yourself, perhaps improving your ideas and bringing people along.

And I understand that, but part of scaling is to enfranchise. Just like with Martin, you need to take a step back. You need to be loosely held in your opinions. If Jackie had a strong point of view as to where one should go, but then openly left it for debate.

Even if it's 30 minutes, even if it's a written document that people can listen and understand, they will attach a lot more value to her opinion because she would then be able to present the context and the thought that went behind it. But by moving so quickly and not giving people a chance to understand.

You're essentially just negotiating on your power and the power that one has is very fluid in organizations, so to avoid being in this situation. Enable debate. Make a quick decision. Perhaps adjust with what you are hearing, not for the sake of adjusting, but for the sake of improving the quality of the ideas and bring people along.

When you master this art of loosely held strong opinions as opposed to strongly held strong opinions. You really ensure everyone is part of the win when it succeeds and if it fails, it doesn't come back to you. It's a collection of learning that we then dust ourselves off and go forward, but we do it in a much more team and enfranchised way.

Let's flip gears and let's move to Max. Max is being accused of being political, but Max doesn't understand this feedback at all. Max says essentially that, look, I am known for being one of the best managers. My team loves working with me. My staff is loyal.

My employee survey results are awesome. I work tirelessly to build out our culture. Everyone in the company knows that Max's teams are one of the best teams out there, and he recruits really well, the best, the brightest people don't leave the team. You know, all of us know these exceptional team builders, but Max is hearing that he's unprincipled when it comes to people that he fights for his team instead of doing the right thing for the business.

You know, Max is labeled as political. When he advocates for team, for scope, for responsibility, especially during these planning periods, and so his confusing feedback is it — well, isn't part of being a great manager to advocate for your team? I don't know why the value of a loyal team is so unimportant to management, especially during this tough climate.

And is it political to suggest that other teams are less efficient when it's true? Sure. Tensions are high when there's risk that people might lose scope or even their job. But shouldn't we retain the best people regardless of the org structure? I think I'm being principled, Max tells me, opposite of what I'm hearing.

You know, he's fighting for his team. His team is strong. He wants to ensure that they get their just and due rights. And ultimately the point is that he's spent so much time building a world-class top-notch team, which his belief is this is critical. For the company or for any company. To be accused that that's actually not a value is just frustrating him.

So the advice to Max is really whether the team is overbuilt. For the business that we have in hand. I received his feedback personally once for one of my teams, and the feedback I got was, you know, I came in and I said, look, I have this great team. I think it's pretty well known that, you know, that's one of the biggest assets that, that I have created and that the company has, and the feedback, and I remember this quote so vividly from the, the person who's very open with me, and it was a very, very helpful comment. And he's like, look, I think you built a Maserati and it's going through the potholes of Venice. And I thought about that and I thought, boy, how could he say that? Like, isn't the goal to build a Maserati?

But actually the answer was no. The goal was to build the right team for the company that we have, and the company didn't need this five star engine. And in some ways, my interest in building the team was to build the best team possible, not the best team that the company needs in order to hit its business goals.

And when I thought about it from that frame, I'm like, oh yeah, you know what? It's probably true that I probably overbuilt the team for what the business really had with the constraints and the climate. And if I'd have taken a little bit off, and in fact much of the feedback I was getting around project and scope and maybe what's the right thing for the organization came from like, well, maybe we should take a little bit off your team.

Congratulations on being such a great builder, but maybe we should take a little off because that would end up improving the business. Maybe we take some of the highest quality people and move them around. Right. And then as I thought about it more, I thought, well, you know, I'm heading to a bit of a collision.

If you overbuild a team, no matter where you are, if that team does not get fed, You are going to struggle because that team needs to continue to have more and more scope and more and more opportunities to prove themselves and to show off their best work, and that may not be available. And so what I started realizing is the job of a team builder is to build the team that the business needs and to be loosely held on how high quality that team might be.

And if it turns out that you are over your skis and you've built a stronger team than maybe you need. Maybe what you do is you thin out that team, they will end up in better positions outside of the company and you will end up having built the correct team for the position you are in. One day you will leave and when you leave, the people are going to continue to work for the company.

They're not working for Max, they're working for the project at the company. And so if your north star is that people should work for you and then you are carrying them forward, that in and of itself is very limiting. Because you'll leave, their careers will change, the project will change, the business climate will change.

And so you have to be much more loosely held in how teams are constructed, even when you're building the highest quality ones.

Now again, this is a great example of once someone comes to this realization, the training kicks in. This is not an eight year practice on rethinking how to manage people. This is literally a principle that the person, in this case, Max, holds true. Max's belief is that a high quality five-star team is critically necessary for him to do his best work.

When if the company needs three stars and he's like, oh, three stars is what I need to move towards. Maybe I hire two great performers and then I get much more junior folks in their careers and maybe I restructure the organization accordingly. Okay, that's it. That might be a two minute of the conversation and Max might be fine.

Or Max may say, holy cow, I am really interested in the job. Only if they can create a five star team. Today I just realized this business needs a three-star team. Why am I working here? Boom. That's a much better conversation than why is it the case that I can't promote all of my great people in this business when the business is shrinking?

And do you see how political turns into realization? That's the style of realization, coaching, and ultimately the type of development that takes place when you seek the shadow under the superpower.

Okay. Example number four is from Jenny. Jenny is not just a team builder, but much more of an org builder. So what I mean by that is Jenny is really strong at scaling and you would think like what would actually be the shadows of scaling? And it's really around detail. And getting in the weeds. And you know, in Jenny's case, you know, she feels like, look, I'm excellent at scaling and managing an organization.

I give senior people plenty of time, plenty of room to maneuver. Strategy is oriented. Well, the team's healthy. The organizational dynamics are very well considered. Projects are split accordingly. Everyone has a clear goal and swim lines, right? So this is exactly what we expect from our senior leaders. But the feedback she's getting is, look, in our culture, I'm being accused of being too much of a delegator that, you know, the expectation is that I'm able to go into the detail and in the weeds and discuss with my own leadership really nuanced decisions and really nuanced details.

And my instinct is to pull the leaders in. And increasingly the feedback is, look, you know, you know, it's less clear where you stand on the projects and what your point of view is. And that requires you to understand the data, understand the decisions, understand some of the context. Now her response is like, look, I expect my team to work at that level, and if I go in the details, what's their role?

So in some ways, you know, how is it scalable for the leaders to know all the details and to be, the one accountable when the reality is that it takes a village. Now I think that the coaching here, and by the way, [00:25:00] this is a real challenge for some of the best org leaders, is how to stay connected as they, they get further along.

And I think that some of it is based on this idea that either I have it or you have it. So I think that if you visualize a steering wheel, and the question is, you know how many hands are on the steering wheel? Well, a master org builder and a delegator might be very much like, look who's got the steering wheel.

If it's me, then you go to the backseat, and if it's you, then I'm going to be in the back seat. And when leadership comes and says, well, where's this car going? They essentially look to see who's in the driving seat, but for a lot of leadership positions, what you really want is to share the seat. You really want multiple hands on the steering wheel and to present the right balance around how to turn that steering wheel in concert.

And so the guidance here is not to essentially micromanage or to know all the details, but it's actually to be deep enough that you understand the challenges that the project faces and the context that it has, and to be able to represent why things are the way they are. And the more you're in the backseat, the harder that is.

Now, I've been actually working through this over the last five years, and what I've realized is as I've gotten more into the depth and the weeds, my view on a project is different than the team, because the team is very much like, look, we're owning the decisions in moving forward. I have the advantage of being higher up on the mountain.

So I can see the project from a different level, and when I go down to the actual project and I actually listen and understand what's happening, maybe not a lot of time, maybe 30 minutes or an hour a week, what, what I'm looking to understand is this makes sense amongst the context that I have and amongst the other projects that I'm looking at.

And I enjoy the work a lot more when I get a little bit more in the detail. But the tone and model that I pursue is not one of like I'm going to take over, which is sometimes the fear that a Jenny would have when you look through this instead, what you end up actually doing is partnering and offering your insight and also learning more about the challenges so that your own insight starts to adapt and evolve.

Now, I don't think you can do this for every project that you have. So part of the conversation that one has with leadership is look for the most critical projects. You do need to be more engaged than you are as just a team leader and as a delegator, but for those, you're not going to micromanage and own those.

You're going to offer the right leadership advice and be very cognizant of the strategy and the complexity of choice that goes into those projects, and hopefully the team will see that as valuable. They'll be like, look, leadership cares about what we are doing at a level of detail. It's not just to set and forget, but then you have to adapt and have the conversation, which is less formal.

You know, I think a lot of times when you come in and get engaged, you're expecting a degree of formalism and clarity that you know, you see in these project reviews that just can't be done if you're at the next layer of detail. When you're higher up, you're looking at a different level of quality of communication and information than when you're lower down.

So this is a big development challenge is how does Jenny hold the steering wheel? With the team, how does she adapt her process to enable it to be a little less formal and a little bit more messy?

How does she understand the context that's critical to making the key decisions influencing those and then represent it to her own leadership? This is what a master delegator has to do in order to not only have a broad, healthy organization, but to nail the critical strategies of those bets that the organization is responsible for.

Lastly, I want to talk about Evan. Evan represents, you know, what I would call a bit of a stereotype at almost every successful company, which is they have the old guard. They have the folks that have been there forever. Some of those people don't belong. They're not really effective for the business that's been handed to them, but I think that this actually refers to. The excellent old guard, you know, in Evan's case, he's like, look, I have a long tenure at this company and understand the history of what we've done in the past.

You know, let's assume that in this example, the company's been around for a while, the company's had a lot of success, so this individual's like, look, I can predict how the things will go, whether they're org decisions, or people decisions, or strategy decisions, or even market decisions, you know, I have uncanny accuracy.

It's what's really brought me to my position and it's basically given me a ton of job security because I have such shorthand with understanding how what we have works and how those changes could play out, that I have a tremendous superpower that's very, very helpful for this company.

But the feedback that I've been getting or perhaps have been observing is that we're not innovating particularly well, you know, and in fact, I worry that I'm holding back innovation, you know, new people in the team struggle to make a mark and stand out and new ideas. Get squashed, and I get a lot of criticism that, you know, you hold things too tightly and as a result it's hard for change to be presented.

Evan's perspective on this is, look, I'm open to ideas and actually expect others to sell them to me. But I just fundamentally think our team is incapable of presenting the strongest quality ideas, especially given the stage and scale of our business. And I'm not going to support concepts just for the sake of enabling a team.

I think that my role is to ensure that I'm thoughtful around what works and what doesn't, and I don't want to put good money on bad ideas. And so I'm in a quandary where I'm accused of not allowing new ideas to take on and take hold. But the reality is that they aren't great and I can tell, and I don't want to necessarily pursue them.

So this is a really tough superpower. Because in this case, your expertise is what gets in the way. In some ways, if you think back, most of the great innovations that have taken place shouldn't have belonged to the companies that held them. You know, those companies probably were more naive than they should have been.

The incumbents, the experts should have come up with those ideas, but I think they had a lot of Evans, they had this sort of innovator dilemma going on.

They were experts but in their expertise, they didn't allow things that shouldn't have worked, actually to work. And a lot of innovation just shouldn't work at the beginning, but they actually do. And so in some ways you need a spoonful of healthy naivety for new things to take on. This, by the way, as an aside, is why founders are more effective when they're younger in some ways, because when you're a young founder, you don't know a lot and you try things and most of the things that you try, you could have predicted wouldn't work, and they don't, but then a few things that you try, people would've predicted wouldn't work. And they do work and everyone's surprised and that's where the real true innovations come. But the older you get and the more experienced you get, the more you know and the less you try.

Right? So founding early is one of the reasons why a lot of great companies that have become, household brand names and tech were founded, by people that were really early in their career that didn't know any better. And Evan is essentially the gatekeeper of those ideas. And so I think I've got a couple of suggestions that would help Evan, but I would say that Evan's.

Creating a bit of environment around lack of innovation because you know, think about how you would feel if you were an innovator and maybe a little naive, but you have great ideas, some of which may stick, and you have a conversation with Evan and Evan's basically like, we've tried that, or let me tell you why that won't work.

Or here's what you would need to show in the first six months for it to succeed. An entrepreneur's going to be like, well, I don't know those things. And frankly, I would have to test it. And you know, I don't really wanna spend all my time trying to tell you why this will work or why this won't. I just want to build stuff.

So maybe I'll just go to a different team, or maybe I'll take my ideas to a better home. And so what Evan has now created is an environment and a culture where predictability is more important than innovation. And ultimately then he gets frustrated because the predictable people in his team that are very good at presenting things exactly the way that he is expecting, you know, should be now presented with opportunities to create new ideas. And that's not their skill. And so you're in a bit of a chicken and the egg innovator dilemma type issue.

Okay. So what I would say is that perhaps in this example, Evan needs to scale up a bit because his role of making decisions and actually approving concept might be the wrong role for him. He might be better putting someone else in charge and them being, above that individual by scaling further away from the day-to-day.

The day-to-day is allowed to take this meandering walk where, you know, maybe he looks at a project and says, hey, what's our expectation in a year or 2 years? And the person's like, well, we expect these metrics to go up. Here's the basic premise of what we're resting on, but we're not really sure what the first three months, six months, may look like, what technologies we're going to need.

So we're going to try a bunch of random stuff. And you know, from. Evan's point of view. If he's looking at the project more holistically in a portfolio of lots of bets, he might be like, okay, as long as we commit to seeing this succeed, and this is what I'd have to believe in a year, I'm willing to give a lot of rope for the team.

And then the people on the ground now have the freedom to go and explore, but they know what success looks like. But if Evan's in a position to look at things every three months, and he has so little naivety, he's going to starve the innovation before it even starts. We're going to get stuck on the runway.

And so scaling up and then asking him to use his skill. Less about approving today's problem and more about approving where the industry needs to go, where the product line needs to go, where does the organization needs to go, et cetera, will very much help. But he should also be cognizant that he needs to be more open-minded for serendipity.

And if innovation is important to the company, then he should really go out of his way to celebrate. When things work out that he did not expect, and he should recognize that in tech, things change all the time. So an idea that may not have worked in the past may work now, and competition is just unconstrained, and so be open to those concepts working when they didn't before. Be open to allowing people that have perhaps not buttoned up approaches to solving something. Come in with a concept that we actually build on, and then give people lots of rope to make mistakes with constraints.

So you leverage your strengths, but you're hyper aware of your shadow and casting a light on it.

Okay, well these are just five examples that I've kind of dealt with in my own career and with some of the folks that I'm close to and I coach. There are literally hundreds, and in this episode, in the last episode, we've shared a bunch of different ones. I'm curious. Which ones are you working through? You know, find me on LinkedIn. I'll have a post on this episode. Leave a comment for what strength are you working through and what do you believe the shadow might be?

Let's see if we can kind of work on it together.

If we get enough of those, I'll do a second examples episode where we can kind of walk through those together. We can share some of the coaching and then more broadly, I just love to get feedback from the audience on is this style of example and coaching helpful because this summer and this fall for this podcast, I'd like to move more towards management coaching theory because I think there's just as much wisdom on this podcast for driving career by talking through coaching advice as there is in transition advice, and my hope is that many of you are in a effective role. You're happy with your role, but there's a lot more you want to do, and you're hitting these obstacles and you're a little stuck, and your manager may not actually be able to even recognize the obstacle, let alone coach you through it.

That's what we're all here for. So I appreciate you, spending time listening to today's episode. Love to get feedback as always, and best wishes on finding your superpowers and discovering the shadows that live beneath them.