The Presence Lab | Executive Communication Under Pressure

Do you have something hard to say to your boss? At 24, I walked into my general manager's office with a problem about my own boss and an offer to step in. This episode is about why that conversation worked, and why a solution alone is no guarantee anyone acts on it.

You hear a 2017 exchange from The Game Changers with Jason Jennings about when a new fund manager does their best work, what NASA's Starliner investigation shows about concerns that sit for years, and research on how people evaluate employees who speak up. Then the difference between a solution and an offer, and what leaders can do to keep the door open.

Chapters:
00:00 The offer I made at 24
00:56 A new boss behaving badly in public
02:40 Having the evidence vs saying it out loud
03:40 Why a 24-year-old walked in
04:22 Archive: The Game Changers, Episode 113
05:08 Year one and the new fund manager
06:08 NASA's Starliner report
08:24 How bosses judge people who speak up
09:05 What I said to the GM
09:56 A solution vs an offer
10:55 Keeping courage once the history piles up
12:33 For leaders: keep the door open
13:07 The mushroom syndrome
14:03 Jaspreet Gill: three ways to respond
14:51 Fear Check Live
15:31 Whose side are you on

Archival audio: The Game Changers with Jason Jennings, Episode 113, "Constantly Shuffle Portfolios," 2017.
Video clip used with permission: Jaspreet Gill, MBA, a certified high performance coach, via LinkedIn.
Video courtesy of NASA. Video courtesy of the U.S. Space Force. Images courtesy of NASA.

Join Fear Check Live (free, Monday, December 14, 12 PM MT) in our Sphere community: https://presencelab.sphereapp.com/

Show notes: https://www.daledixonmedia.com/disagree

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this episode. Email me at [email protected].

The appearance of U.S. Department of War (DoW) visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorsement.

Sources:
NASA, "Starliner Propulsion System Anomalies during the Crewed Flight Test - Investigation Report," dated February 5, 2026, released February 19, 2026: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/nasa-report-with-redactions-021926.pdf
NASA, "NASA Releases Report on Starliner Crewed Flight Test Investigation," February 19, 2026: https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-releases-report-on-starliner-crewed-flight-test-investigation/
NASA, "NASA Decides to Bring Starliner Spacecraft Back to Earth Without Crew," August 24, 2024: https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-decides-to-bring-starliner-spacecraft-back-to-earth-without-crew/
Administrator Jared Isaacman's note to the NASA workforce, February 19, 2026
Steven W. Whiting, Timothy D. Maynes, Nathan P. Podsakoff and Philip M. Podsakoff, "Effects of message, source, and context on evaluations of employee voice behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 159-182, 2012: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21842973/
Frances J. Milliken, Elizabeth W. Morrison and Patricia F. Hewlin, "An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don't Communicate Upward and Why," Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476, 2003: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

Does your mind keep running to the worst case? This episode is for leaders who want to stop catastrophizing and decide which fears deserve their attention.

You hear how to size a fear with a number, and why the mind skips the odds even when you know better. You get the research on why a risk that is easy to picture feels likely, what misplaced fear costs a leader and an organization, and why your team reads your state before it hears your words. You also hear how fear in doses you choose can work for you, from stress inoculation to the haunted house sweet spot.

Then comes a three-step tool you can use this week, the Fear Check: say it, size it, steer it. It works like the safety briefing before a flight, and it points your attention at the risk that deserves it.

The Fear Check, two pages (a poster and a worksheet): https://www.daledixonmedia.com/fear

Michael Easter's essay "Fear Is Good" is the doorway into the episode.

Chapters:

00:00 Catching a worst-case story

01:54 Michael Easter's Fear Is Good

03:59 Sizing a fear with a number

05:39 Why a mind skips the odds

10:51 Our team reads our state

12:57 Fear in doses we choose

14:25 The Fear Check

17:56 The question to carry

Media training for leadership teams: email [email protected] with the subject "Team training."

Episode mentioned:

The Antagonist Test (episode 303): https://www.daledixonmedia.com/intent

This episode is about leadership and risk perception. It isn't medical advice, and anyone struggling with anxiety should talk to a qualified professional.

Sources:

Michael Easter, "Fear Is Good," Two Percent newsletter, October 26, 2026

FBI incident and fatality counts for 2021 through 2025 (217 incidents, 382 killed, from the FBI's 2025 annual report), with our own math on the lifetime odds; U.S. Census Bureau population estimate, 2025; CDC National Center for Health Statistics life expectancy, 2024

National Safety Council, Injury Facts, Odds of Dying (2024 data): lifetime odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash, about 1 in 100 (1 in 101), for a person born in 2024

Sarah Lichtenstein, Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, Mark Layman and Barbara Combs, "Judged Frequency of Lethal Events," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), 551-578, 1978

Cass R. Sunstein, "Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law," Yale Law Journal, 112(1), 61-107, 2002

David E. Levari, Daniel T. Gilbert, Timothy D. Wilson, Beau Sievers, David M. Amodio and Thalia Wheatley, "Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment," Science, 360(6396), 1465-1467, 2018

Gerd Gigerenzer, Risk Analysis, 26(2), 347-351, 2006

Sigal G. Barsade, "The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675, 2002

Thomas Sy, Stéphane Côté and Richard Saavedra, "The Contagious Leader: Impact of the Leader's Mood on the Mood of Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes," Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295-305, 2005

Marsha M. Linehan, DBT Skills Training Handouts and Worksheets, 2nd ed., Distress Tolerance Handouts 14 and 14A, Guilford Press, 2015

Donald Meichenbaum, "Stress Inoculation Training: A Preventative and Treatment Approach," in P. M. Lehrer, R. L. Woolfolk and W. S. Sime (eds.), Principles and Practice of Stress Management, 3rd ed., Guilford Press

Teri Saunders, James E. Driskell, Joan Hall Johnston and Eduardo Salas, "The effect of stress inoculation training on anxiety and performance," Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(2), 170-186, 1996

Marc Malmdorf Andersen, Uffe Schjoedt, Henry Price, Fernando E. Rosas, Coltan Scrivner and Mathias Clasen, "Playing With Fear: A Field Study in Recreational Horror," Psychological Science, 31(12), 1497-1510, 2020

Matty Merritt, "The rise of indie horror bookstores," Morning Brew, October 30, 2026, citing BookScan

Notes on the research:

The lifetime odds in the episode are our own math on the FBI's counts. The FBI does not publish odds.

Gigerenzer's road-death figure (nearly 1,600 additional deaths in the year after September 11, about 1,595 in his paper) is a modeled estimate from traffic data, not a count of individual deaths.

Levari's experiments were lab tasks with Harvard students. Applying them to a company is an extension, not the study's finding.

Barsade's study was a lab experiment with 94 business undergraduates in 29 groups, and the mood came from a trained actor who played a group member. Sy, Cote and Saavedra studied 189 students in 56 project groups, with the leader's mood induced for the experiment. Neither is a study of real executives.

Willing hands is a distress-tolerance skill in Marsha Linehan's dialectical behavior therapy. We found no published study that tests palms-up hands against a clenched fist for calming yourself, and the open-hands move is presented as a coaching practice.

The Saunders et al. meta-analysis is from 1996. Whether a workplace program built on it works has to be tested on its own.

"A leader's job is to know when there's an antagonist in the meeting, but not see every hard question as antagonistic."

Free Field Guide: https://www.daledixonmedia.com/intent

Chapters:

0:00 Three asks, one message

1:36 Should we always stay on message?

2:28 What Cathy did well, and one step better

4:53 Left in the edit bay

5:51 Most meetings have no antagonist, and a deliberate pause

7:56 Favorable or antagonistic, since 1928

9:46 My own assessment report

11:02 The worst story, and my car warranty

12:38 How the worst story wins

13:51 The antagonist test, two intent moves, and never ask why

14:56 A leadership-team meeting, step by step (hypothetical)

16:58 When I miss it

17:17 What is this person trying to learn?

Episodes mentioned:

The Read (episode 297): https://www.daledixonmedia.com/theread

The Switch (episode 285): https://www.daledixonmedia.com/switch

The Mirror (episode 286): https://www.daledixonmedia.com/mirror

Sources:

NBC News, full conversation with Andrew Cathy; TODAY, Andrew Cathy interview with Craig Melvin (Oct 14, 2026)

USA TODAY, Melina Khan (Oct 19, 2026)

FOX 5 Atlanta (Oct 15, 2026)

Bavelas, Black, Chovil and Mullett, Equivocal Communication (Sage, 1990)

Marston, Emotions of Normal People (1928), as summarized in Inscape Publishing, The DiSC Indra Research Report (2003)

Wiley, DiSC History; Wiley, Can I use DiSC for hiring?

Hostile attribution in perceived justification of workplace aggression, Psychological Reports (2003)

Orobio de Castro and colleagues, Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis, Child Development (2002)

Eurich, What self-awareness really is (and how to cultivate it), Harvard Business Review (Jan 4, 2018)

Itzchakov, Kluger and Castro, I am aware of my inconsistencies but can tolerate them, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2017)

Further reading (not discussed in the episode):

Lencioni, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012)

Salovey and Mayer, Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality (1990)

Joseph and Newman, Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model, Journal of Applied Psychology (2010)

Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer and Vohs, Bad is stronger than good, Review of General Psychology (2001)

Weger, Castle and Emmett, Active listening in peer interviews, International Journal of Listening (2010)

Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler, Crucial Conversations (book)

Andrew Cathy was asked the same hard question three times on the Today show, and he stayed on message all three times. That took skill. The question was built with no good answer, and in that chair, message discipline was the right tool. Most of the hard questions we face come in meetings, though, from people on our own side of the table, and there the usual failure is not listening. Dale Dixon shares the antagonist test, the two ways to check intent, the deliberate pause, the worst story we tell ourselves, what his own assessment report says about his urgency, and a twelve-second way to answer the real question.

Description

Sam Altman said the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of AI. He deserves credit for naming the tradeoff out loud. The reaction raises a harder question for every leader with a difficult decision to announce: how do you push past the fear, and the advice to soften it, without asking people to carry a cost you wouldn't carry yourself? Dale Dixon breaks down the interview, the tension leaders feel before a hard message, and the one sentence that keeps the cost and the responsibility together.

"Fear tells me they won't like hearing it, conscience tells me I wouldn't accept it, and the work is knowing which one is talking."

Chapters

0:00 The interview

1:58 The advice to wait

3:20 Pay attention to the tension

3:59 Fear or conscience

4:57 Who pays, who decides, who answers

7:19 The hotel study

9:15 The cost sentence

11:02 Your next announcement

Links

• The Cost assessment: https://www.daledixonmedia.com/cost

Sources

• POLITICO, Decoded interview with Sam Altman (Oct 2026): https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/04/sam-altman-decoded-interview-ai-01106217
• Reuters coverage (Oct 4, 2026): https://www.reuters.com/business/openais-altman-says-ai-benefits-warrant-accepting-some-risks-2026-10-04/
• Criticism from Gov. JB Pritzker and Luiza Jarovsky, as reported by Cybernews: https://cybernews.com/ai-news/altman-bad-things/
• Andy Stanley Leadership Podcast, Managing Tension: https://omny.fm/shows/andy-stanley-leadership-podcast/from-the-vault-managing-tension
• Simons and McLean Parks, behavioral integrity in 76 hotels (Cornell, HBR Sept 2002): https://news.cornell.edu/node/280372

Research note (show notes only, not on air)

Tony Simons and Judi McLean Parks surveyed more than 6,500 employees at 76 Holiday Inn hotels in the US and Canada about whether managers' words and actions lined up. A one-eighth point improvement on the five-point scale was associated with profit higher by 2.5 percent of revenues, more than $250,000 a year for an average-sized hotel. The finding is correlational.

Picturing the big meeting going well can make it go worse.

The night before a high-stakes meeting, the meeting shows up early. The CFO challenges the number, a board member asks the one question we hoped to dodge, and the scene stops right there, at the worst moment. Jaw tight, breath shallow, ceiling at 2 a.m. The usual advice is to swap in a better movie. The research says that can backfire.

This episode starts with a scared kid, a school Shakespeare play, and a front porch aimed at the neighbor's door. From there: what astronaut Chris Hadfield did when he went blind outside the International Space Station, why reassurance made one group of high performers do worse, and the three-part NEXT MOVE practice: Notice it, Finish it, Park it.

For executives, founders and senior leaders who know their material and still lose sleep before the meeting that matters.

Hit play, then grab the free Field Guide: daledixonmedia.com/next

Mentioned in this episode

• Free Field Guide: daledixonmedia.com/next
• The Grip and The Blank, earlier Presence Lab episodes referenced on the show

Research and sources

• NASA STS-100 mission, April 2001. Chris Hadfield, "What I learned from going blind in space," TED, 2014.
• Hadfield, C. (2013). An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth.
• Wong, Q. J. J., & Moulds, M. L. (2011). Impact of anticipatory processing versus distraction on multiple indices of anxiety in socially anxious individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(10), 700-706.
• Brown, M., & Stopa, L. (2007). Does anticipation help or hinder performance in a subsequent speech? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 35(2), 133-147.
• Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1208-1217.
• Jones, C. R., Fazio, R. H., & Vasey, M. W. (2012). Attentional control buffers the effect of public speaking anxiety on performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 556-561.
• Further reading: Hinrichsen & Clark (2003); Jiang et al. (2021); Webb et al. (2010). Most of this research uses lab speech tasks and student or socially anxious samples.

It means so much if you like, subscribe and share this episode.

The go-to answer to "Is AI taking my job?" is "embrace it and you'll be fine." The people using AI the most are the ones most worried about losing their jobs.

It happens at the end of a one-on-one, the morning after a headline, in a joke that isn't really a joke. Someone asks the question no leader can answer with certainty. Worry about technology making jobs obsolete just hit a record high. Companies have cited AI in more than 100,000 announced job cuts this year. National news ran more than 2,000 stories on AI and jobs in three months, and almost none of them tell a leader what to say when the question comes.

In Episode 300, Dale Dixon explores why the usual reassurance misses the fear underneath the question, what a study involving snakes and mild electric shocks reveals about uncertainty, and why the answer starts with where the leader sits. It closes with three moves for that conversation: Go First, Facts Not Forecasts, and What Do You Control?

Plus, a tribute to the late Jason Jennings, the reason this podcast exists, including a clip from our 2020 conversation about layoffs.

"You can't promise their future. You can promise the chair beside them."

Free Field Guide: The three moves, the circles of control, and sample lines for the conversation. Grab it at daledixonmedia.com/aifog

Join the free Presence Lab community for live Q&A: daledixonmedia.com/community

Know a manager who's about to get this question? Send them this episode.

Mentioned in this episode
The Game Changers, Episode 234, with Jason Jennings: https://www.buzzsprout.com/11786/episodes/3592687

Sources and further reading

• Gallup, "More U.S. Workers Fear Losing Their Jobs to Technology" (2026)
• Gallup, "Using AI More Does Not Reassure Workers, Managers Do" (2026)
• Gallup on AI use and layoffs (July 2026)
• Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Job Cut Reports, June-August 2026
• Media Cloud, U.S. National collection, June 25-September 25, 2026
• de Berker et al., "Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans," Nature Communications (2016)
• Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois & Callan, "Uncertainty During Organizational Change," Journal of Business and Psychology (2004)
• Gibson, Harari & Marr, "When sharing hurts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (2018)
• Cascio, Young & Morris, "Financial consequences of employment-change decisions in major U.S. corporations" (1997)
• Yale Budget Lab, "AI Is Probably Not (Yet) the Reason for Labor Market Weakening" (2026)
• Bick, Blandin & Deming, "The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI," NBER (2024)
• Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (1989)

Interrupting someone feels rude. Sometimes not interrupting is the bigger communication mistake.

Dale Dixon learned that during about fifteen years in television news, where protecting the viewer sometimes meant cutting into an answer and bringing the conversation back to the question.

One live interview with a candidate for governor forced that decision in real time. Dale had three minutes, one question about accountability, and an answer that kept moving somewhere else.

He interrupted.

He never got the answer.

But the experience left him with a question he has been working on ever since:

When is the thing that feels rude actually the responsible move?

In this episode of The Presence Lab, Dale examines the split-second judgment behind interruption and three practical moves for handling it:

SETTLE FIRST
Get steady enough that discomfort does not make the decision for you.

NAME WHO IT'S FOR
Identify who depends on the conversation being useful.

BRING IT BACK
Interrupt briefly, say what you are protecting, ask one clean question, then let the other person answer. 

The episode also looks at research on attention, social-evaluative stress, the social cost of interruption, and evidence showing that our interruption patterns are not always as fair as we think they are.

The goal is not to interrupt more.

It is to develop the judgment to know when interrupting is the respectful thing to do.

An interruption has to earn the cost it creates.

Free Interrupt Field Guide

Get the two-page guide with the three tools, sample language, a practice drill, and a seven-day interruption check:

https://daledixonmedia.com/rude

Join The Presence Lab

Practice communication under pressure with other leaders:

https://daledixonmedia.com/community

Research referenced in this episode

Gloria Mark on attention and screen switching:
https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/attention-spans

Dickerson & Kemeny on social-evaluative stress:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15122924/

Han Z. Li on cooperative and intrusive interruption:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X01020003001

Katherine Hawkins on deep interruption:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X91103003

Dupas et al., Gender Differences in Economics Seminars:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.20241718

Miller & Sutherland on interruptions at congressional hearings:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/effect-of-gender-on-interruptions-at-congressional-hearings/DDD33F28A1C8ED9C162E1793D8126243

Jacobi & Schweers, Justice, Interrupted:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/faculty-articles/274/

Cai et al., Let Me Just Interrupt You:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/let-me-just-interrupt-you-estimating-gender-effects-in-supreme-court-oral-arguments/4870F0FD3BEF0E00AF46F8D64EDA2289

Jeremy Paxman / Michael Howard background:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jan/31/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia

You know the material. You’ve done the work. You may even be the most knowledgeable person in the room.

So why do you suddenly get nervous when the stakes go up?

Sometimes it isn’t a preparation problem. It’s because you quietly took on a second job.

The real job is to communicate clearly, answer the question and help the room make a good decision. The second job is managing what everyone thinks about you: Make sure I look smart. Don’t get caught without an answer. Don’t let them see me struggle.

Dale calls that second job The Grade.

In this episode of The Presence Lab, Dale examines the psychology behind why capable leaders can become more anxious, defensive and self-conscious when they feel evaluated. You’ll learn why wanting to perform well is different from trying not to look bad, how self-evaluation steals attention from the room, and why a five-word answer like “I don’t know. I’ll find out” can become surprisingly difficult under pressure.

Dale also examines two recent real-world examples, including Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley’s response to questions about misuse of the company’s license-plate-reader network and Georgia Tech head coach Brent Key’s response after a difficult loss, to show the difference between defending your reputation and defending the work.

You’ll leave with three practical moves:

1. Name the second job before you enter the room.
2. Ride sweep by asking, “What does this room need from me in the next twenty minutes?”
3. Grade the work, not yourself after the meeting.

Plus, Dale gives you a simple test for your own high-pressure answers: What did that sentence defend, the mechanism, the recommendation, or me?

Get the free two-page The Grade Field Guide at daledixonmedia.com/grade.

Join The Presence Lab community at daledixonmedia.com/community.

If this episode gives you language for something you’ve experienced, follow The Presence Lab and send it to someone who does high-stakes work.

You notice the folded arms. The silence. The lack of questions. The person looking down at the table.

You read the room.

Then you make the dangerous leap: you decide what all of it means.

In this episode of The Presence Lab, Dale Dixon shares a university classroom experience where he was paying close attention to the audience, adapting in real time, and still getting the read wrong.

The problem wasn’t that he failed to notice the signals. The problem was the meaning he attached to them.

That same mistake shows up in boardrooms, presentations, team meetings, sales conversations, and difficult one-on-ones. Experience gives leaders useful pattern recognition, but it can also cause us to complete the story before we have enough evidence.

You’ll learn how to:

• separate observation from interpretation
• recognize when experience is autocompleting the room
• look for patterns instead of reacting to one person
• test your read before changing course
• stay curious when pressure starts pulling your attention inward

The three practical moves are Split the Sentence, Count to Three, and Test the Read.

The goal isn’t to become better at guessing what everyone is thinking. It’s to become better at noticing when the room in front of you is different from the one in your head. That is the central distinction the final episode builds toward. 

Free Field Guide:
https://www.daledixonmedia.com/theread

Join The Presence Lab community:
https://www.daledixonmedia.com/community

How does a bad decision survive the idea, production, internal review and final approval before somebody finally says, “We shouldn’t do this”?

That’s the leadership question behind the Good Good Golf and Callaway controversy.

A co-branded ad drew widespread backlash after depicting Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoving fellow creator Alexis Miestowski to the ground. Callaway later acknowledged that it had reviewed and approved the ad before it was posted.

The consequences went well beyond social media criticism. Callaway ended its relationship with Good Good, retailers pulled merchandise, Golf Channel canceled the current season of Big Break x Good Good, and Good Good stepped away as title sponsor of the PGA Tour event in Austin. Those details reflect the updated reporting reviewed for this package. 

The more useful question for a leader is what happened before the public ever saw the mistake.

In this episode of The Presence Lab, I use the Good Good and Callaway case, along with Meta’s proposed settlement of up to $18 billion over state claims concerning child safety on Facebook and Instagram, to examine what happens when organizational judgment fails.

I’ll walk through the crisis framework I’ve taught for years:

Own it. Get clear about what happened and take responsibility for what actually belongs to you.

Fix it. Go beyond the apology and find the conditions that allowed the problem to happen.

Prevent it. Build the judgment, systems and lived values that help people make better decisions before the next crisis arrives.

The prevention piece is where this gets personal. I’ll share a values exercise my family worked through over several dinners and how five very simple values became something we could actually use when making decisions.

That experience changed the way I think about corporate values.

Values on a wall don't do much. Values that are identified, discussed, modeled and deliberately used in real decisions can become part of an organization's protection system.

There’s a practical test you can run with your own leadership team: Take one difficult decision from the past 30 days and put your company values beside it. Which value actually influenced the decision? What did honoring it cost?

Your answers may tell you whether you have values your organization lives by or simply values your organization publishes.

In this episode:

• Why Callaway’s approval of the Good Good ad is the most interesting part of the story
• What effective ownership sounds like after an organization makes a mistake
• Why explaining intent too quickly can weaken a crisis response
• How to investigate the conditions that allowed a bad decision instead of simply adding more bureaucracy
• What the Meta settlement adds to the conversation about values, incentives and tradeoffs
• How lived values can improve judgment before a crisis
• A simple exercise for testing whether your corporate values actually influence decisions

Learn more about executive communication coaching and The Presence Lab at Dale Dixon Media. https://www.daledixonmedia.com/

Join the free Presence Lab community https://www.daledixonmedia.com/community