#109—Jayshree Seth: Effective Collaboration and Innovation Between Science and Business

Jayshree Seth is a Corporate Scientist at 3M who currently holds 80 patents for a variety of innovations, with several additional pending. Jayshree was appointed 3M’s first ever Chief Science Advocate in 2018 and as is using her scientific knowledge, technical expertise and professional experience to advance science and communicate the benefits of science and the importance of diversity in STEM fields to drive innovation. She has a MS and PhD in Chemical Engineering from Clarkson University, New York and bachelors of tech in chemical engineering form the prestigious NIIT Trichy in India.  

In this discussion, we dive deep into the topic of some of books, especially her latest, The Heart of Science, with material from her upcoming book, Engineering Blueprint  and a fascinating Fast Company article she co-wrote with our good friend Rita McGrath titles, A guide for managing innovation: 4 big mistakes technologists wish their business leaders would stop making.  She has a lifetime of experiencing building bridges between science and business, something 3M is uniquely good at.  

_________________________________________________________________________________________

In this episode, she shares:

• How the scientific and technical community embraces ambiguity and failure--and what business leaders can learn from them 
• Tips on how to foster effective, collaborative communication with your technical employees on the frontline, that are in line with both strategic goals with realistic expectations. 
• How to foster and optimize the opportunity for "uncommon connections” —or or fortuitous collision of ideas—to happen. 
• A sneak peek into the culture of empowerment at 3M that makes them a powerhouse of innovation 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Episode Timeline:

00:00—Highlight from today's episode
1:46—Introducing Jayshree + The topic of today’s episode
4:13—If you really know me, you know that...
5:30—What's your definition of strategy?
6:36—Do you believe that the field of management is scientific?
10:59—Can you lay out the four mistakes leadership make when working with techical people on a high level?
11:50—The first mistake: Misdefining ambition
14:53—The second mistake: Limiting collaboration
19:20—Can you lay out the idea of leveraging vs. learning, and how leadership plays a role in this?
25:02—The third mistake: Dismissing technical process
23:58—What are your thoughts around the rise in dynamic pricing?
27:37—Could you describe some attributes unique to 3M that activate innovation
32:19—What are some last thoughts you'd like to share with us?

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Resources:

Fas Company Article: A guide for managing innovation: 4 big mistakes technologists wish their business leaders would stop making.

Books

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jayshree-seth-6287b45

All content © 2024 Outthinkers.

Thank you to our guest. Thank you to our executive producer, Karina Reyes, our editor, Zach Ness, and the rest of the team. If you like what you heard, please follow, download, and subscribe. I'm your host, Kaihan Krippendorff. Thank you for listening.

Follow us at outthinkernetworks.com/podcast

Transcript

Kaihan Krippendorff: Jayshree thank you so much for being on the podcast with us. It is great to finally have you on.

Jayshree Seth: I'm excited to be here. Thank you.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Yeah. I've been fascinated about your career and our listeners, by the way, find great content on what your role is, how you came to it, how you came to the United States, how you found your path to this really fascinating role that very few other companies have. So what I would love to do is go deeper into your work because people can find that other places. I do start with 2 questions that I always began my podcast with. And the first 1 is, just so we can get to know you a little bit more personally, could you complete the sentence for me?

If you really know me, you know that.

Jayshree Seth: If you really know me, you know that I write poetry, I compose songs, and I love acrostics. So, basically, acronym based frameworks. And I say, hey. I'm a STEM professional. That itself is an acronym, but I can give you my spiel there as well.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Oh, yeah.

Jayshree Seth: The real stick is STEM, science, humanity's technology, engineering, and math. That's what I believe.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Love it. And why and why do you put humanity into stem?

Jayshree Seth: I think it's strategically so important. If we really want the public and the society to accept science and science based innovations, I think, humanity's and sociologies so critical to bring those innovations alive sort of contextually. So I love to create in the lab and in language,

Kaihan Krippendorff: Yes. No. I love it. I've got a list of several of your acronyms that I'm excited to go through, including 1, just as a preview that you talked about, which was errors. So I would love to eventually get into that 1 too.

This is a podcast and strategy. You work strategy across many dimension. You've got your communication strategy or influence strategy. You've got science and the scientific method, which I guess you could say is a strategic methodology. What's your definition of strategy?

Jayshree Seth: That's easy. Given my training, my role, strategy to me is simply the scientific method. The scientific method is nothing but a systematic approach to solving a problem or understanding a situation so you observe something. It raises a question. You try to understand the background the best you can, and then you formulate a hypothesis, and then you plan and conduct experiments.

You analyze the results, and the results lead you to a conclusion about the validity of your hypothesis. So now you can develop recommendations. You communicate it. You refine the next steps. And then you get to do it all over again.

And that to me is the essence of good strategy and really a strategic mindset as well. You know? This is what we're seeing. This is what we know. This is what we'll find out.

This is how we'll do it. And we'll adjust course as new data or new information becomes available.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Do you think then that management theory or the field of management is scientific.

Jayshree Seth: I believe it is. I actually get sick and tired of hearing about set outcomes and focus on outcomes. The focus in my view should be on figuring out what needs to be done to achieve said outcomes. And if it doesn't happen, why not? What other experiments can be done?

But people get so stuck on the outcomes and not the method. And they wanna call it strategy. Strategy is really the scientific approach to get to the outcomes.

Kaihan Krippendorff: And I love that you said that because when I read your recent article that you wrote with Rita MacRath, who we hear a big fans of, as our you, on in Fast Company, that that was 1 of the big kind of thoughts that I were left with. So would you mind for our readers and encourage people to go find the article and read it. Could you kinda lay out the structure of this article?

Jayshree Seth: Yeah. I mean, strategy is great. Right? But if you don't have the right culture and the right leader trip, you won't be able to get it right. You won't be able to execute it in full measure anyway.

So I wrote this article with professor Rita McGrath. I'm a big fan as well. And in this piece, we specifically talk about the chasm that can exist between 2 very important communities. The business leadership, and the technical people. And if it is not addressed, you know what they say?

Culture will devour your strategy to paraphrase a drunker. And a lot of it comes down to the leaders understanding the microcultures, if you will, and the mindsets. So in this case, we're focusing on scientists and engineers and the importance of formulating the strategy and communicating the tactics in a way that truly facilitates the innovation that you need. So the technical community is typically quite comfortable with the unknown. You know, science itself is a process of discovery, and r and d is certainly very iterative nature.

So you gather information, you do an experiment, you leverage, you're learning, you do the next experiment, and so on. And if your hypothesis didn't work out, it's not a failure because you learned something. Failure is an integral part of the scientific method and of the innovation process, and it does lead to valuable insights. And technical people usually stay in their fields a little longer, so they carry with them some sort of a history of that area. And this is highly relevant to innovation.

So business leaders on the other hand, they are under immense pressure to make an impact and move on. And feeling at something, woah, gosh, golly. That is something business leaders don't try to to do. They don't wanna create difficulties for the technical organization, but they end up doing it. Sometimes, to make matters worse, this revolving door leadership that has become very common at many large companies, it really causes a lot of stress.

So we wrote about this in this fast company article that you mentioned. It's titled a guide for managing innovation. 4 big mistakes, technologists wish their business leaders would stop making. And we highlight, like, 4 areas where you need a better balance to close this gap between technical and business.

Kaihan Krippendorff: I'm gonna ask you to list those, and then we'd go into each 1. But I do wanna just underscore something that I don't know if the listeners will have noticed is that this idea of short term and long term, that's understood. The difference between outcomes and learning That's understood. But what I really just walked away with from your article is this revolving door at the career path of business people versus technical people that provides an enormous kind of, I don't know, break in incentive. Right?

Because I need to do this for 3 years, I need to have a great outcome and then move on to the next thing. I hadn't thought of that.

Jayshree Seth: Yes. And that is exactly why the 1 and only Rita McGrath did this article with me because I think this voice of the technical community of the engineering community has really not gotten to this platform where we can openly share what is it that happens as a result of some of the business mindsets, and it is important for the business leaders to understand the technical mindsets. Yes.

Kaihan Krippendorff: So could you list for us these 4 mistakes.

Jayshree Seth: Yeah. So the first 1 we call is misdefining ambition. This is when the leader declares things like, we need to play big. I'm interested in the next, you know, x million dollar opportunity. So that's 1.

The second 1 is limiting collaboration. You know, saying things like, y'all focus on the technology. Don't worry about the business. I don't know. We'll take care of it.

The third mistake is underestimating technical challenges saying things like, what we need is lower cost products and we need higher performance. And, you know, the fourth 1 is dismissing technical process. You know, we're doing too many things. What we need is brutal prioritization. So these are kinda, like, the 4 things that we pulled out, big buckets of mistakes that can happen.

Kaihan Krippendorff: And when do we just read this tagline at the top line, I think that we don't realize. These are really big buckets. Each of these is kind of a foundational source of disconnect. So I'd love to ask you to just go into each 1 a little bit if we start with mis defining ambition when we say, you know, we're gonna I need something transformative. We are going to build something you know, we're gonna build a rocket ship that's gonna go to the moon now that I'm here.

We're gonna do it. Well, why is that a problem?

Jayshree Seth: Well, you just said it, you know, you walk in saying things like that. You will get a lot of internal eye rolls because you know, there's nothing wrong with aiming high or trying to have lofty goals. But that statement, it makes people feel like you know, y'all were playing small before I arrived. You know? And the technical people know that big projects take time.

And they also suspect that you will likely not stick around, so you might be just doing your check the box. And, you know, big opportunities are not just sitting around. Waiting for folks to easily find them. And if technical people knew they were there, they'd already be working on them. So many in the technical community will be pretty skeptical if you start like that.

I believe what they should say instead is something like, hey, I value the technical perspective, and I wanna understand what you think we should do to generate significant new growth. This will show that you're willing to put in the effort to understand the business. The customers, the trends, the industry, the ecosystem, the technologies, and the roadmaps from all perspectives. It shows commitment, not just this we're gonna do this big thing because you have to understand in uncertain situations, everything is a hypothesis. So you really can't promise that outcome before the experiment is done.

Only thing you can control is that you do it well. And so technical people see this happen very often. And all this disproportionate Hoopla about 1 big project. So they'd rather underpromise and overdeliver. And so good leaders know that, and they act accordingly.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Interesting. So what kind of results or outcomes or metrics should we be as business leaders be emphasizing?

Jayshree Seth: Well, it comes down to the scientific method. Right? What is the hypothesis? How did you form that hypothesis? And, honestly, it could be that it's the next hundred million dollar opportunity.

But starting with the outcome in mind is the problem because that immediately, you know, provokes a reaction where people say, I don't understand how they said that. What is the data that leads them to make this conclusion that there is this opportunity out there? It's almost like in the communication, in the tactic, and how you develop that strategy and being transparent about it.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Got it. We have time. I'd love to understand how 3 m does that, and it reminds me a little bit of some of the things that are known that Amazon does. There are probably some organizations that have been able to use language or tools or approaches to kinda bridge that. Let's first get on to the next 1 talking about limiting collaboration.

Jayshree Seth: Right. So telling people that we'll take care of the business and y'all do the technology. This is not actually reassuring. If maybe if it comes across as a surprise, let me tell you. It is not reassuring because technical people are inherently curious.

And they consider themselves perfectly capable of thinking through logically. That's what they do. And being involved in providing input on strategic decisions that affect the business because they affect the technology. So just because you didn't don't think that you know, you can or want to be involved in technical doesn't mean that the reverse is true. Technical people actually also love business people who are interested in technology behind the innovation.

So it's much better to say things like, hey. I wanna learn more about the technical aspects. I also want you all to help me as we develop our business plans. Because there is nothing more that frustrates technical champions is silos and siloed thinking. And the thing that people don't realize on the business side is that the nature of technical work makes technical people way more inclined to cooperate and collaborate with 1 another.

But there's a very palippable sense of competition among business folks. So business leaders should accept and better yet address this because most senior technical people want to contribute and be part of determining whatever it is that we're deciding are the critical actions or milestones on the business side.

Kaihan Krippendorff: This raises a question that I can't articulate properly. But I heard you talk about the difference between r and d, and you being someone who jumped into technical problems that you had no experience with. How to make loop fasteners, and you figured it out. And so what I kinda hear you saying is that technical people could look at the problem of how do we market this product, or who do we sell it to, or how do we source as another problem that they can apply the scientific about the 2, and they can solve even if they don't have the authority or the role or existing knowledge to solve it.

Jayshree Seth: Yes. That and the fact that all those decisions and discussions plant seeds in the head. And sometimes you can suddenly make uncommon connections. So good technical people like to plant all these seeds somewhere, and you never know when that moment comes and you can make that. Connection.

So it's very important to have all that information.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Yes. So your third 1, underestimating technical challenges. Can you talk to us about that?

Jayshree Seth: Right. So lower cost products, higher performance? Really? Don't we all know that? I mean, is that really a new strategy?

You know, if cost could be just magically lowered and performance improved, wouldn't that effort be underway already? You know, so to fundamentally change that cost performance equation of any product, it either requires a new scientific discovery or advancement on a new technology building block or more or different infrastructure to scale or a different supply chain to secure. So from a technical perspective, if the business is serious about the strategy of low cost and improve performance, they also need to be serious about investing time and money to develop the new. However, however, many times, the implicit x expectation on part of business people is we'll just leverage what we know, but we will deliver the new. You know, Short tailers and business leadership roles, they are often interested only in leveraging and not learning.

What they really should be saying is, hey. How can we add more value for our customers? Help me understand that. That shows to the technical people that the business leader understand the importance of, you know, staying up to date with the latest and learning about technologies and trends and breakthroughs. Many, many business leaders just don't realize that the short term exploited strategies really have an impact on the long term health of an organization.

That that short term shortsighted strategy of only leveraging what has been done in the past really cannot be sustained. And so business leaders should acknowledge that and act accordingly.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Yeah. When I read the article, I think it really opened my because I've used the term explore and exploit. I love learning and leveraging. I think maybe that's even more clear. And until I read this article, I did not really understand the distinction.

I don't know if you could try to explain that to me. What's the difference between learning and leverage?

Jayshree Seth: So if you are truly committed to a growth opportunity or solving a customer problem, you will be interested in learning more about it, and that learning might also involve invest in a new technology fragment or a new technology building block or a new technology platform. If you're interested in leveraging, you're gonna say you wanna solve all these problems. But, hey, we're gonna leverage the infrastructure that we have, the platforms they have, the capabilities we have. Now this really puts a damper on the way technical people think. If you really are committed to solving a problem, everything should be, fair game.

We will leverage as much as we can because we all understand the value of being able to leverage what we already have. But at some point, you need to learn in order to be able to leverage it. So if you get these revolving doors, and every leader is coming in saying, I just wanna leverage. They don't say that, but, essentially, they say that. Because if they want this big opportunity and they want results, what does that mean?

You're not letting the organization learn. And if you have this going on for a while, you will end up with an organization that only is interested in exploiting, and you will actually start losing talent because technical people want to be charting new territory, learning new things, and everybody loves a learning organization.

Kaihan Krippendorff: And I would add to that that your pipeline of new things then dries up. So you have nothing else to leverage because you haven't put the time in or let people with the time in 5 years, 10 years before to work on something. Exactly. Eventually, they're just fascinating. It reminds of what my work, I get curious about subjects and start studying them, and it might take me 5 years or 7 years to work on it and complete the book.

But my team is interested in near term opportunity, and they're, say, you shouldn't work on that. You should work on this. But it is 7 years later that I take my 15 percent as you guys get at 3 m that exceeded what eventually becomes something we can do.

Jayshree Seth: Exactly. Link. So good leaders understand that, look, we have to learn and we have to leverage and we have to have a good balance of learning and leveraging. And there are ways to do that. You know?

You can have a few people looking at the longer term. You can have few people looking at the shorter term, and you can have people that make sure that the long term and the short term are connecting. So you again, it comes back to the importance of the culture where there's a lot of exchange of information. General learning is still going on, although you may be leveraging for certain things.

Kaihan Krippendorff: This won't push you a little bit further in that because here's kind of how I'm thinking. There is maybe leverage things to produce ad create rep. Then there's working on problems and trying solutions that may or may not work. We have to do that types of things. It's near a stage maybe before.

I think I get artists who paints just a paint. A scientist just curious about leader da Vinci had his notebook, and he just had questions about how does the eyeball of a bird work? And he's just curious. Is that, like, a third level?

Jayshree Seth: So here's how we do this. We anchor our Vinci da Vinci's in either our markets or our platforms or our customers or trends or solutions. So some way or the other, a learning organization is always thinking about how things work, why they work the way they work, and what we can do to make those things work better. So I'm particularly interested in trends. And technologies and emerging stuff.

But it is always grounded in what can this possibly mean? What does it translate to, and what will the customers need as a result of these trends coming to fruition? Or where other trends will come as a result of this? So You can always anchor that thinking in a learning organization because you're thinking of not just the current today, but also what's to come tomorrow. And that's what the leaders have to commit to that we are here to solve problems for this particular customer or market.

So we're invested in understanding, what are the trends at play?

Kaihan Krippendorff: There's something I think 3 m does as well. That is if the attempt to solve the problem results in a technology that failed for that problem. There's somehow a marketplace. Like, the the most talked about story of innovation ever of course, is a 3 is a 3 unposted note, which was a technology meant to be a super sticky, adhesives, and completely failed. But somehow there was a openness or a marketplace or somehow someone could take that and say, hey.

We can use it for a different application.

Jayshree Seth: Yes. And that kind of connection happens at 3 of them all the time. We call them uncommon connections. We have 51 technology platforms. And we are constantly getting together as a technical community.

That's our secret sauce. And we are listening to problems people have. Solutions people have that are looking for problems. Or you know? And that interaction is really the empowerment of the technical community.

Kaihan Krippendorff: I think that's really, really important to have that marketplace of problems and solutions that can find each other. Anyway, we could go deeper in that, but I do also want to ask you about this issue of dismissing technical process?

Jayshree Seth: Yes. So this is a tough 1. When leaders come in, and they talk about prioritization. We know that we will lose time and we'll have a lot of inefficiencies if business priorities change. And, ideally, they should not change dramatically just because a new leader emerged or because it's a new business quarter.

So as a new business leader, you have a lot coming at you, and it's really hard to get the contextual grounding to make decisions on what is important and what is not. So it is really important to understand the current priorities of the organization that you walked in and a reasoning behind them so that you can make, you know, changes. Because this whole process of building capability is very path dependent. It's very cumulative. And if you do this on again, off again of resources, and priorities, it really impairs that ability, and it can even kill it.

So technical people need to feel reassured that you as the person making all these prioritization calls, you have sound logic, and you have reasoning. And, really, it's the worst outcome from a moral perspective if you change priorities, and then you let your subordinates do the you know, quote unquote dirty work of letting the technical people at the bench know that the priorities have changed. Because what happens then is even if there is good reasoning, it's lost in translation, and it's couched under metrics and metrics that are meaningless because they are stripped of the context. And you can't walk into the technical people and say, that's what the boss wants because that is not a marching order for the technical community. They are trained to question, and they will continue to do so.

They will continue to do so. And they know that most projects don't fail because they don't have priority. They fail because they didn't have focus. So it really, really important when leaders come in and say, I wanna prioritize, you know, instead, you should say, you know, I'm striving for transparency and clarity. And if we shift focus, I will include your input in the decision process because business folks often walk in and they confuse seemingly the act of prioritization with the demonstration of leadership.

And to us, to the technical community, leadership follow through what happens after prioritization is really the leadership. You know? Or the communication of the loss of deprioritization of a project. Just doing prioritization for prioritization's sake is a problem.

Kaihan Krippendorff: I know we're reaching the top of our time with you, but I think I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you to just touch on 1 thing, which isn't necessarily in the article. Know, 3 m is admired as a company that for, I don't know, a hundred years. I don't know how long 3 m's been around. Well, over a hundred. I don't know if there's another company that has had that level of longevity through innovation, and you do it from an organizational people perspective.

What if you could just tell us a few of the things that you think are unique to 3 m that we and other companies might be able to consider adopting or adapting in order to enable this type of activation of innovation.

Jayshree Seth: Yeah. Many things I think the most important is the culture of empowerment. And what I mean by that is we have 15 percent culture, and we did it before anybody, before Google. And what it essentially is we can spend 15 percent of our time working on a project that we feel is important for the company, and it may not be in our area. And so that is very empowering as you're walking around.

You know, you find some problem that you think should be solved, and you think it could be relevant for 3 m. You can be working on it. So the sense of empowerment. And, you know, not everybody uses it. But the very fact that you have it is phenomenal because that's what gives that sense of empowerment, that culture Right?

Now how are you going to learn about what other problems are out there or what other solutions are? Another magical thing that Dream does is brings technical people together, and it's called tech forum. It is run by technical people, 4 technical people. And bringing them together, the magic just happens. People say, well, I've got this problem.

Oh, have you considered this? Oh, I didn't know about that. Oh, talk to this person. And then suddenly you've got this idea. You're helping other people in your 15 percent time.

And now what? Well, Trim also has grant programs. So I can take a 15 percent project. I met all these people at tech forum who thought, yeah, that's a great idea. I can write a proposal and a committee of peers, a committee of peers gives me money to work on this problem.

So that's another matter. Speers.

Kaihan Krippendorff: So it's not the not the central authority going through the pipeline.

Jayshree Seth: That's great. Yeah. So peers get together and we go, ah, should we give them money to this, or should we give them money to this? Should we grants like that? And I think in my career, 30 years, I have gotten 18 or 19 of those grants, and it's phenomenal because not only does it teach me how to think, how to come up with ideas, how to make network and inspire others to work with me on this, how to generate funds and really fight for your idea and then self budget all these skills that you want your innovative employees to have, the culture is providing you all of that.

And then the best part is, you can then have these ideas go into an NPI hopper of a business or a division, and they can take that on and you can commercialize it. And you can stay on the technical ladder if you so desire. You don't have to move to management to really get to that level. I mean, you can actually have levels that are exactly, you know, lockstep on the management side. And so As an example, I'm at the level of corporate scientists, which is the highest level you can attain in the company as a technical employee.

I'm at the same level as a division, vice president, and we both get a parking spot in Minnesota. That's important. So I think not only name, it is actually we all sit on the technical sort of council that our CTO has. So they do that in real ways. So that's the dual ladder is another very important aspect of Dream's culture.

So these are some of the few things, and then, of course, we have a very you know, sense of signs apply to life that also really brings our purpose. Our our brand promise is signs apply to life. Our, you know, purpose is to unlock the power of people ideas and science and reimagine what is possible.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Wow. I love it. I love it. Yeah. My son is applying to physics programs now and as an undergrad in college, and that's the kind of place, I think, that he's looking for.

And I can see why that allows you to attract just great talent.

Jayshree Seth: Yes. And, you know, don't get me wrong. It's not like we don't have our issues over the years. Every company does. Sure.

But having a strong legacy, you know, of a culture of empowerment, a culture of collaboration, and this communal context of improving lives, that is the essence that we try to keep a life.

Kaihan Krippendorff: So I've got, like, 15 more questions, and we're you know, reach the time with you. Luckily, you have a lot of material that people can find. You've written 2 books. You write articles. I found lots of podcasts with you.

Is there something that you didn't get to say in this podcast or something I should have asked that you didn't get to answer?

Jayshree Seth: I think I would appreciate talking about the your question about the books because I am pretty excited about the third book, and it comes early 20 24. So the plan is for it to be the final in a trillogy. I wrote the first 1 in 20 20. I wanted to do something meaningful left to the George Floyd killing in right in our backyard in Minneapolis. So I published a collection of my essays and all proceeds go to a scholarship for underrepresented minority women in STEM.

And it's administered by the Society of Women Engineers. And you won't believe it. I got to meet the first caller who was supported from the sales per scenes. And I was just so inspired, and I decided to write the second book, and that came out in 20 22. And happy to report, Kaihan, that now we have 4 Scott dollars whose engineering journey is being supported by the sales proceeds of my 2 books.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Amazing.

Jayshree Seth: So in the third book, I'm creating tips and tools and techniques and templates on many of my acrosticks and frameworks on various topics that I have developed over the years, you know, for leadership innovation, strategy, diversity, culture, science advocacy. You know? Because I get asked often, you know, Can I get that framework? Can you talk about this acronym? So I think it's very important, and I encourage your listeners to support the books and the calls.

They're available on Amazon. Heart of science, engineering footprints, fingerprints, and imprints is the first book. Engineering fine print is the second, and the third 1 will be engineering blueprint. And my strategy is simple. I'm using what I call my own pockets of privilege to pay it forward.

Kaihan Krippendorff: That's amazing. Thank you for that. Thank you for sharing it for doing the work for us and for taking some time to share some of it here with us. It was such a pleasure to have you on tissue.

Jayshree Seth: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Kaihan Krippendorff: Thank you to our guest. Thank you to our executive producer, Karina Reyes, our editor, Zach Ness, and the rest of the team. If you like what you heard, please follow download and subscribe. I'm your host, Kaihan Krippendorff. Thank you for listening.

We'll catch you soon with another episode of Out Thinkers.