Think your workplace runs on pure merit? Think again. In this season-opening episode, Berkeley Haas professor and leading sociologist Toby Stuart reveals how hidden status dynamics shape whose ideas get heard, who advances, and why meritocracies might be a “nice myth to think about” but nearly impossible to achieve in practice. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Stuart, author of the new book Anointed: The Extraordinary Effects of Social Status in a Winner Take Most World, joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to explore how social status quietly drives decisions, what functions it serves in organizations and societies, and how leaders can navigate—and reshape—these hidden hierarchies. *The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer is a production of Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM.*
Think your workplace runs on pure merit? Think again. In this season-opening episode, Berkeley Haas professor and leading sociologist Toby Stuart reveals how hidden status dynamics shape whose ideas get heard, who advances, and why meritocracies might be a “nice myth to think about” but nearly impossible to achieve in practice. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.
Stuart, author of the new book Anointed: The Extraordinary Effects of Social Status in a Winner-Take-Most World, joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to explore how social status quietly drives decisions, what functions it serves in organizations and societies, and how leaders can navigate—and reshape—these hidden hierarchies.
(Transcripts may contain a few typographical errors due to audio quality during the podcast recording.)
Why you can’t ignore the hidden forces of social status in your organization
Publishing Date: September 30
[00:00:02] Jennifer Chatman: Hello, and welcome to the Culture Kit with Jenny and Sameer, where we help you create a work culture that actually works.
[00:00:11] Sameer Srivastava: Whether you're in the C-Suite or just starting out, an effective workplace culture is essential to achieving your organization's goals.
[00:00:20] Jennifer Chatman: I’m Jenny Chatman, a professor and dean at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business.
[00:00:26] Sameer Srivastava: And I'm Sameer Srivastava, also a professor at the Haas School. Together, we founded the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation.
[00:00:35] Jennifer Chatman: Today, we're starting off Season 4 by talking about a force that's so pervasive, it's probably shaping your workplace in ways you might not even realize.
[00:00:45] Sameer Srivastava: And we have one of our own Berkeley Haas colleagues joining us. This is going to be great.
[00:00:52] Jennifer Chatman: Hey, Sameer.
[00:00:53] Sameer Srivastava: Hey, Jenny.
[00:00:54] Jennifer Chatman: It's been a while. I'm excited to be back with you on the Culture Kit.
[00:00:58] Sameer Srivastava: Me, too. A lot has happened in the world since our last season, not to mention you taking on the role of Dean of the Haas School. Congratulations!
[00:01:07] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah. Well, thanks. It's been a privilege leading Haas. One of the things I'm most proud of about the school is our brilliant faculty, so I'm especially thrilled to have one of them join us today to kick off the show. Professor Toby Stuart, who plays a huge role at Haas as Faculty Director of the Berkeley Haas Entrepreneurship Program, Faculty Director of the Institute for Business Innovation, and Head of our Entrepreneurship and Innovation Group. Welcome, Toby!
[00:01:35] Toby Stuart: Thanks, Sameer. Thanks, Jenny. It's a great pleasure to be here. It really feels like all in the family, so I'm looking forward to this conversation.
[00:01:44] Sameer Srivastava: I'm especially excited to have Toby here. Toby and I go way back. In fact, Toby was my dissertation co-chair when I did my Ph.D., and since then, we've become colleagues here at Berkeley and friends. So, I'm especially thrilled that we're talking today about his new book called Anointed: The Extraordinary Effects of Social Status in a Winner-Take-Most World, which just launched on September 2nd.
[00:02:08] Jennifer Chatman: So, Toby, we always like to start with definitions, and you describe status as a pervasive force that influences us in ways that we aren't even aware of. What is social status? Why do humans have social hierarchies? And what are some of the main ways that people acquire status?
[00:02:27] Toby Stuart: Well, let's jump in. That's the whole book. So, we'll get there. We'll get there really quickly. So, sociologists often go with a definition of status, which is, it's the deference or respect that you pay to somebody else, and we often think about it existing in some form of an exchange relationship. You give somebody status, that is, you give them your respect, and they're giving you something back in exchange. And so, it's a form of a relationship. It's this super interesting resource because it has a set of unique properties.
One is—it doesn't exist outside of a social context. So, kind of the proverbial, like, you're going along, the boat capsizes, you wash up on the island, you're Gilligan, but none of your friends make it, right? There is no status on that island. There's just you. You can think of yourself any way you like, but there's nobody else to acknowledge the contributions you make in some social setting.
And the second thing about it is it's one of these… There are other resources like this, but it's this interesting resource in the sense that you can spend it without depleting it. Which is to say, you can give status to other people and/or other things, you do all the time, we do all the time, that’s where the title comes in. In major or minor ways, you anoint other people or other things, and that’s a bestowal of status, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a depletion or a reduction in your supply of it.
So, to come back to your opening question, Jenny, which I didn't even come close to answering, like, where does status come from? It comes from a lot of places, but let's do, like, the three and a half big ones as quickly as I can. And then we can jump into as many of these as you like.
So, one is what we would just think of as merit, like, you're a member of a group, and a group has something to give you back for your contributions, and what the group has to give you is often status. It's always status. So, every group has status to give its members, and when you do something that the group values, you are rewarded with the respect of the group. And what's interesting about that is, there's, you know, there's obviously an endless number of groups with all different, sort of, purposes.
So, that's one thing. The second thing is what sociologists call ascribed status, which I just… I've always thought of as whatever you inherit at birth. So, you inherit sex, you inherit skin color, you inherit, you know, probably height, you inherit certain amounts of cognitive capacity, you inherit eye color, you inherit the socioeconomic standing of the family that you're born into. And all of those things, in all places, in all times, are hierarchically ranked, like these memberships, and as in these ascribed groups or characteristics, have status implications. But that isn't status you earn, it's what you inherited at birth.
The third place that status comes from… And this has been the majority of the research that I've done on the topic. The title of the book is it comes from anointment. That is, status is kinetic. It’s literally always in motion; it's transferred from one party to the other via affiliations of every type and every sort. So, you know, we give status to other people all the time.
And then the final place where status comes from is it's a self-fulfilling prophecy in some settings. So, status comes from already having it, if that makes sense.
[00:05:53] Jennifer Chatman: So, many organizations, including scientific organizations, tech companies, they pride themselves on having meritocratic cultures. Yet your research suggests most fields are really deeply influenced by status. So, tell us more about some of the ways this plays out. What are some of the more surprising examples of what this looks like?
[00:06:17] Toby Stuart: Yeah, so, I love that question. I mean, let me tell you another, sort of, origin story of my research career, which is that when I decided to get a Ph.D., I did it because, well, I was super naive. I had gone to this liberal arts college, my parents are academics, I had no real understanding of how the world works. But I had been told by many people that if you go into, like, you'll work for a company, it's about schmoozing, it's about ingratiating, it's about who you know, it's about forming alliances, it's about doing all the things that we talk about, but it’s not so much about merit, right? It's about this other stuff. And I just thought, you know, I'm going to be less good at that, so I should go do this, I should go into the field where it's a straight meritocracy, like, I should be a scientist because in science, isn't it obvious? It's, like, it's the best idea that wins. It's the most careful research, it's the most important project, and these are, you know, relatively speaking, objective. These are objective things, like we know how to judge them.
And so, I get to graduate school, I get to Stanford GSB, where I did my Ph.D. One of the first papers I'm asked to read is Merton's The Matthew Effect in Science. And, you know, I have not ever thought the same way since I read that paper. And I continue to put that paper into every first-year Ph.D. course I ever taught because I think those five pages, or whatever it is, radically changed how I think about everything. And the punchline is science is this gigantic status system, and that's the way academia works, and credit accrues to people who already have fame, like, I was dead wrong, like, if anything, probably corporations are more of a meritocracy.
[00:08:07] Sameer Srivastava: So, a couple more questions about the nature of status. You talk in the book about how status can serve some useful purposes too, like reducing our cognitive load or helping groups allocate resources. Could you maybe give an example of how that plays out in organizations, but also tell us a little bit about the flip side of how informal status hierarchies might compete and get in the way of the formal hierarchy in an organization?
[00:08:31] Toby Stuart: Yeah, those are great questions. So, the general position in the book is that there's a central drawback of the status system as it currently operates, which is that it creates inequity. And the inequity arises for two principal reasons. One is because there's a set of status characteristics that we don't earn. We're just born with them, and those are the so-called ascribed characteristics that we already talked about, you know. So, if you're born white male versus if you're born black female, you were endowed with the presumption of greater competence across many, many walks of life. And even though empirically there's no basis for that assumption, it turns out, like, it's still true, right? So, one problem, OK the principal problem with status is, one, you don't earn part of it. And the second is, when you look at the distribution of status, it tends to be way more skewed than the distribution of merit.
So, there's a second form of inequality, which is we have these extreme outcomes, like, there are really, really high-status people, but it turns out they're not that much better than whoever's next best, but their status is way, way higher. Like, it's not even necessarily the best at whatever it is they're doing, they just are the, they're the most prominent. And so, it creates these forms of inequality, but it's immensely helpful. And to take an example that might be, you know, since we're on a podcast, like, take podcasts or take books, because I just wrote a book, or take art, or take, you know, the social media that was created in the span of time it took me to complete this sentence.
And so, we have this enormous choice problem, which is there is an endless amount of noise in our life. Like, there's an endless amount of books of social media posts of art, you know, of you name it, of ideas in the workplace. They keep coming and coming and coming and coming. And we need a system for what gains our attention and what doesn't. And the status system, that sort of operates in the background, and this is one of the reasons why I call it invisible, like, it's behind the curation of what we become aware of in the first place and what we choose in ways that most of us never even think about. You know, but a simple idea in the workplace is: an idea, is an idea, is an idea. Like, we just think, if you're in a leadership role, what you just want is the best idea, right, about whatever it is you're working on. You want the best idea; that's what you want to run with. But what you don't realize is that ideas are of uncertain quality, and your assessment of them is typically very much tied to however you perceive the status of the person who espouses the idea. But status lies behind all of this.
[00:11:17] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah, I'm thinking of there were studies back in the day — blind orchestra audition studies that showed that people were able to focus on merit at some level. So, I'm wondering if in a kind of analogous way, some companies have tried to flatten hierarchies or eliminate titles to reduce these status effects so they could focus more intently on merit. Do these approaches work? Or are informal status hierarchies too kind of overwhelming?
[00:11:50] Toby Stuart: I mean, I think you're probably thinking of Claudia Golden's study. So, it turns out that, historically, the first chair in the violin, or any instrument, in nearly every notable symphony orchestra is male. Then that leads you to speculate, well, maybe just men are better violin players, like they have, whatever, some physiological difference that allows them to play the violin better. But there was this early idea, and the idea is, like, okay, well, so how are first chairs chosen, or how are musicians for symphony orchestras chosen? Well, they audition. So, you have this panel of, like, the conductor and the music director and whoever else, and they listen to people get on stage and perform. And so, somebody, at some point, had this idea, “Well, what if everybody just performed behind the screen? So, you have no identity characteristic. Like all you do is you hear the music, but you have no idea who's behind the screen.” And it turns out, you end up, if you audition that way, you pretty much end up with gender parity in who gets chosen for these roles. But when you have the freedom of viewing who the person is, overwhelmingly, men are chosen for the job.
And that gets into, like, maybe the most central assertion and the central claim in the book, which is that's a thought experiment we can repeat over and over and over and over, where you take some product, like, it might be a bottle of wine, or it might be a handbag, or it might be an idea in the workplace, or it might be a scientific paper. You take any of those kinds of products. And you keep the product constant. It's like, there's one performance up on stage and there's only one, but we're going to assign that performance to a different identity, that cues a different perception of where the performer sits in the status hierarchy.
And that's status at work behind the scenes. And the reason that happens is because it's very hard to judge many of these products. Even a performance, everybody's so good when they're up on stage that, like, it's probably a lot of apples and oranges and marginal differences. So, if you add information, which is the status of the performer, or the author if it's a book, or the producer if it's a bottle of wine, or the logo if it's a handbag, or the influencer if it's a social media post, or on and on and on and on and on and on and endlessly on, if you add the identity, we then evaluate the product not based on its quality alone, but based on the identity of the producer. And I call that in the book "The Big Shift." And that has dramatic effects for how markets and outcomes function.
But to go back to your question, I think the sentiment of it’s 100% right, that many people are aware this happens, and so, they try to make evaluations behind some veil of anonymity, just like putting a screen in front of a performer would do. You just recreate that situation in an organization. And if you can do that, you might end up with a more merit-based outcome. Your problem goes back to the problem of, like, there's more social media created in this 10-second sentence than I can consume in a lifetime. And so, I can't look at all the social media and decide what I'm going to actually then consume, right? There's no… I have no capacity to do that. And I can't walk into a bookstore and decide which book to read, and that's after this immense status process curated what made it to the bookstore. But even then, there's way too much to read. And this is true in organizations; there's just too much noise. So, if you remove the status system, you're then left with the next problem, which is okay, but then how do I figure out what I'm going to pay attention to?
[00:15:43] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah. So, from a psychological standpoint, the reduction of the cognitive load is really appealing for us.
[00:15:51] Toby Stuart: Exactly.
[00:15:52] Sameer Srivastava: Yeah, but let's talk about another feature of status that you touched on early. You're talking about how the distribution of status is more skewed than distribution of merit. And so, one implication is that many people at the top of a status hierarchy believe that they've gotten there entirely as a function of their own merit, when in fact there was this more invisible status process at play. What kind of blind spots does that create for leaders, and what can they do to overcome those?
[00:16:19] Toby Stuart: Yeah, so there's this quote that, 9 times out of 10, it's attributed to Barry Switzer, and I love it. I mean, you probably know it's coming. And then 1 time out of 10, it's attributed to somebody else. So, like, this is the one where, you know, "He was born on third base, and he thinks he had a triple." Right? Which is just the fun way to kind of make the same point, right?
So, if you accept the central arguments in the book, where you end up is the vast majority of people who have high status have it beyond their ability-based advantage. And that's the Matthew Effect and the cumulative nature of status, where if you have it, you get more of it, and you get ahead, and you get ahead, and you get ahead, and you get ahead.
And then, of course, the upshot of that is that many people, in the end, end up in Barry Switzer's world where, you know, they're on third base, and they think they hit a triple. But that, in fact, isn't true. So, if you're on third base and you think you hit a triple, you're probably feeling pretty good about yourself, right? I mean, that's a hard thing to do, and you are going to attribute it to your own abilities or skills.
And in leadership roles, I think that leads to overconfidence, blind spots, close-mindedness, like disinterest in what a lot of other people think, like, it's, I mean, it's all the things.
[00:17:47] Jennifer Chatman: So, are there ways that leaders and organizations could use status for their benefit, like, without perpetuating biases and inequality? Like would you want to create status around an initiative that you think will be good for the organization?
[00:18:02] Toby Stuart: So, I mean, I should ask you that, Jenny. I sit on a bunch of boards, but Sameer's running a department, and you're running a school. So, I mean, you guys are the ones running things these days, and I'm just the podcast guest. But, you know, I think, if I was interviewing you, you know, you're a new dean, you've inherited an organization that, I would say, has not changed a lot in the last very long time. You're looking at a future that's radically different than the past. You know, we, as a society and as a set of organizations, we are facing, like, I mean, I don't even know how to describe it… But a Richter scale 10 earthquake, like, everything's about to change. And so, you have already launched a bunch of initiatives around this, and so, then, when you're leading an organization, I think one thing that most people do naturally is they think, how do you enlist the status hierarchy to help you get things done, right?
I mean, so part of running an organization is having a lay of the land, and there's this classic, you know, another part of organization theory, which I think Sameer, you were alluding to earlier, is this distinction between formal and informal hierarchy. And the informal hierarchy is the status hierarchy, and the formal hierarchy is the boxes and the positions. But Jenny, you're leading a flat organization, and, you know, I don't know, I mean, people always debate whether the dean's box is below or above the faculty.
[00:19:24] Jennifer Chatman: Definitely below.
[00:19:26] Toby Stuart: I mean, that's what I've always thought. But, you know, so, there's not a lot of command and control, and then it's very lateral—So, if the dean's box, say, were above the faculty, then the faculty are all kind of on one line, right? And it's big… There's 100 people or whatever there is in your organization. And so, how do you get things done? Well, I mean, you think a lot about what the informal hierarchy is. Who has influence, who needs to buy into what your initiatives are, and how do you deploy their status to mobilize resources or opinions to get done what you want to get done.
So, that's how you use the status hierarchy. Does it then perpetuate or diminish the meritocracy? I mean, that depends on what's at stake in the agenda. But you're definitely… If you're a good leader, you're intuitively using the status hierarchy for your initiatives all the time.
[00:20:16] Sameer Srivastava: So, let's turn to the topic of AI, and I want to start with the recent op-ed you had in the Boston Globe in which you predicted that AI is going to make it harder to distinguish people based on their actual work output, and it's going to lead to a greater reliance on pedigree. So, can you say a little bit more about how you see that affecting norms in organizations around equity or fairness, how it might change the culture of organizations more broadly, and what, if anything, leaders should do about that?
[00:20:43] Toby Stuart: Yeah. So, on this one, I'm going to say I don't think any of us know. But I think it's just, at this point, if you're running an organization, I think it's an obligation to think about what's coming, what it means for your organization, how it's going to change, and what you can do to affect change in a positive way.
I mean, the narrower argument that I made gets back to the core of the book. There's uncertainty in this world, and that uncertainty is driven by an inability to evaluate people or things. And when we have an inability to evaluate them, we look for other mechanisms.
And so, I do talk a fair bit in the book about art, wine, fashion, products like that, because there's no objective standards for evaluating those things. But then it turns out it's the exact same thing for entrepreneurs. I mean, science, technology are worlds where status dynamics are enormously impactful. They're enormously influential about what happens in the Silicon Valley world, but because there's evaluative uncertainty. But one of the ways that we have evaluated people since we developed the system in the first place is by writing, right? So, think about being a college admissions officer today, you know, I actually had this thought for the 1st time when I was reviewing Ph.D. applications to the Berkeley Haas Ph.D. program earlier in the year. And I was reading these applications, and I realized, like, for the 1st year ever, I couldn't exclude the majority of the applicants based on the fact that they wrote horrific essays. You know, most essays to Ph.D. programs that we receive are downright terrible. And they're terrible either because people are writing in a second language or a third language or a fourth language, and they're struggling with language, or more often, they don't really know what they're getting into, and they're applying for reasons that aren't the reasons we want them to apply, and so, they miss the mark.
But this year, I'm 20 application folders in, and if I were just reading the essays, like, I couldn't really throw anybody out. Now, why did that happen? Well, we don't know why that happened. It's because, you know, that was back in the days of GPT-4. But GPT-4o writes a very good application to a Ph.D. program if you just do a little basic prompting with it. But what that does is it just removes a signal that we've always used.
But now imagine you're an employer, right? And you're reading resumes and cover letters, right? These used to have discerning information in them around form and content… Whether it's fair or not to use that information, like, that's a whole separate topic, but there was information in it. But there isn't anymore because now you just, you know, have the robot whip up the application, customize it to whatever role you're applying for, and off you go.
So, we have this happening, and it then creates a signaling problem. We have lost a signal about how good somebody is at something, and so, then how do we make the evaluation? So, the argument in the Boston Globe is we are going to rely even more heavily on pedigree than we did in the past, for a short while anyways, because the signals that we've used to evaluate quality directly are fast disappearing in a world in which the robot can do everything.
[00:24:02] Jennifer Chatman: So, there's also another phenomenon: business magazine journalist contacted me a week or two ago, asking about the AI war for talent that's occurring right now at firms like Meta, where Zuckerberg is offering these enormous, outsized compensation packages for people who are thought to hold the key to unlocking the commercial value of AI. So, do you think this is a short-term phenomenon where talent is gonna go to the very highest bidder, or is something else going to happen?
[00:24:39] Toby Stuart: Yeah, I mean, there's a few parts to that question. So, one is we've watched this rodeo before, but never at this scale. So, I mean, I at one point tried to do the exact math, but, you know, there's something on the order of 10 to 30 trillion dollars in market cap created by the promise of AI in the last 24 months. I mean, what's happening is historically fully unprecedented. And then you have these other companies, like, you know, Jenny, one of my favorites, is this company that has ties to the school, AppLovin, which is an AI-first company. And it runs this tremendous business, but it does it on very, very few people, right, because it's a very compute-intensive, AI-first business, and so, a small number of employees are able to generate an enormous amount of market cap.
And we're seeing that all over, and as we see that, of course, what it's going to then do is it's going to create high compensation packages and value for the people who are doing this. So, I absolutely agree with the thought that might be behind the question, which is that I think the compensation offers are disproportionate to the talent, right? There is a lot of AI talent now, like, we have a ton of it on the Berkeley campus. The Berkeley campus has been so influential in the development of AI, and we have so many Ph.D. programs across probably 50 different fields on campus where we're minting AI talent. But, you know, it isn't necessarily earning the $50 million dollar comp packages at Meta because that's somebody who spent some time at OpenAI or spent some time at NVIDIA and has the right logos on their resumes and is in the right social network and then gets this outsized comp package, which we've seen in Silicon Valley all the time. So, my view is that the contributions and the comp packages are highly out of whack.
[00:26:35] Sameer Srivastava: Great. So, given that we can't eliminate status hierarchies, Toby, they serve important functions as we've talked about. What does a healthy organizational status system look like, and how do you balance the benefits with the risks?
[00:26:47] Toby Stuart: I think the big thing in terms of equity is, and we were making progress on this, I think, and, you know, my personal view is that we've taken a step back, is that we're just really explicit about ascriptive characteristics. That is, we do our very best to eliminate factors like race, gender, age, you know, factors like that in terms of the formation of the organizational status hierarchy.
And that's very, very hard to do, but I think any organization that succeeds at that has won. I mean, my personal view of meritocracy is it's a nice myth to think about, but it pretty much never has existed, and I'm not sure it ever will. What I would say in the grand historical scheme, you know, 2025 America is far more equitable than nearly all places and nearly all times. But organizations can do more, and I think it's on eliminating ascriptive characteristics and contributing to this to, you know, status hierarchies. And part of that's management and part of that's culture, but part of it's also looking carefully at systems, like Berkeley did this. Berkeley did a careful look at salaries and gender… What was it like, maybe three years ago, Jenny? Something like that. And, you know, organizations need to do that.
[00:28:13] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah. Salesforce has been very active in discussing, analyzing the gender pay gap, and trying to close it.
So, Toby, this has been such an interesting conversation. We always like to end an episode with key takeaways or lessons that our listeners can put to work in their lives. So, what are three ways that leaders can become more aware of status, hierarchies, and combat the inequalities that they create, especially in this AI-driven world?
[00:28:42] Toby Stuart: So, I'm going to go a different place with it, and might use my familiarity with you two to break the rules and just give you one. There's one part of the book that we didn't really talk about because maybe it's the part of the book that I just had thought about least. If you have high status, which most leaders do—okay, so, it's not always true, and there are very disrespected and unpopular leaders in organizations that hold power—but as a general rule, there's a very positive correlation between being in a leadership role and having status in an organization, like those two powers—status, leadership—they go relatively speaking hand in hand.
And how do you as a person with high status in an organization or in a social group, or in your profession, how do you think about that, and how do you use the status that you have? Because now we're back to status as a resource, and you can share it with other people.
And if you accept, you know, as I fundamentally do, the idea that nearly everyone who has high status didn’t fully earn it—okay, so, like, we can argue about what proportion of this status someone has, any one person has, that they actually earned. But my view is, based on all of our understanding of status dynamics, literally just about nobody who has high status earned it 100%. Likely they had 1,000 lucky breaks, and they had the Matthew Effect kind of boosting up their social status and then they had, what in the book I called a “Big Shift,” which is they had positive assessments because their work was evaluated through the lens of the status that they already have, and then all of these things then create high status. And so the question is, how do you respond to the status? And I think maybe the most important thing a leader can do is to recognize that. And that, then, I think, creates a couple of follow-on consequences.
One is I started to read about… And you guys know me, so you'll be surprised by this… I started to read a lot about humility, and about how that's probably the healthy reaction to having very high status, is you should realize that it came from other places. And so, you should be a little bit humble about it, you should be a little bit acknowledging the roles that other people have done, and you should do a lot of passing it along into places that you otherwise might not do. I've been doing, like, lots of that lately in terms of some of the work I do on the side of my faculty role at Berkeley. But I think those are reactions that people with status should have to it.
[00:31:21] Sameer Srivastava: Terrific! Well, Toby, thank you so much for taking the time. This was a really informative, fun conversation.
[00:31:25] Toby Stuart: Yeah. Thanks for having me.
[00:31:28] Jennifer Chatman: Thanks, Toby.
Thanks for listening to The Culture Kit with Jenny and Sameer!
[00:31:35] Sameer Srivastava: The Culture Kit podcast is a production of the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation at the Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM. If you enjoyed the show, be sure to hit that Subscribe button, leave us a review, and share this episode online so others who have workplace culture questions can find us too!
[00:31:56] Jennifer Chatman: I’m Jenny.
[00:31:57] Sameer Srivastava: And I’m Sameer.
[00:31:58] Jennifer Chatman: We’ll be back soon with more tools to help fix your work culture challenges.