Aug 19, 2026 · 14 min · 8 segments
We'd love to hear from you. Send us your questions, comments, and suggestions. What happens when we become exceptionally good at naming harm, but…
Chisom UdezeHost
So what is the responsibility of leadership when something happening in society reverberates through the people you lead? Sure, you can send an email that says, "We know this is difficult," and sure, in many ways that may be kind.

A listening session may be useful, a day off may be humane, but surely our imagination cannot end at helping people recover from systems that remain perfectly intact.

I think this is where a lot of organizations and the conversations that they have about harm stop too early.

We become very good at care after harm, and remarkably timid about power before the next harm.

So yes, we do, but what are we actually changing? Who has power? Who gets protected? Who gets believed? Who can make an ordinary mistake without having their entire competence placed on trial? Who has enough institutional backing that attacking them creates or carries a consequence? Who gets promoted into positions where they can change the rules rather than continually petition the people who make them? Who owns something, anything? Who controls capital? Who sits on the board? Who commissions the narrative? Who can hire, fire, publish, protect, challenge, veto, build? Who can leave? Because there's only so much healing we can ask people to do while the machinery that keeps injuring them remains untouched, and I am increasingly interested in that machinery.

So what is the responsibility of leadership when something happening in society reverberates through the people you lead? Sure, you can send an email that says, "We know this is difficult," and sure, in many ways that may be kind.

A listening session may be useful, a day off may be humane, but surely our imagination cannot end at helping people recover from systems that remain perfectly intact.

I think this is where a lot of organizations and the conversations that they have about harm stop too early.

We become very good at care after harm, and remarkably timid about power before the next harm.

So yes, we do, but what are we actually changing? Who has power? Who gets protected? Who gets believed? Who can make an ordinary mistake without having their entire competence placed on trial? Who has enough institutional backing that attacking them creates or carries a consequence? Who gets promoted into positions where they can change the rules rather than continually petition the people who make them? Who owns something, anything? Who controls capital? Who sits on the board? Who commissions the narrative? Who can hire, fire, publish, protect, challenge, veto, build? Who can leave? Because there's only so much healing we can ask people to do while the machinery that keeps injuring them remains untouched, and I am increasingly interested in that machinery.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.