Powered by the WRKdefined Podcast Network.
[00:00:00] Hi everyone and welcome to episode 2 of our podcast series on the 5 talents that really matter. And back with us again today we have the 2 authors of the 5 talents that really matter, Barry Conchie and Sarah Dalton.
[00:00:16] Welcome and we're so glad that you're back to take us through yet another section of the book.
[00:00:23] So today we're going to be talking about how we select leaders and when I went through that section of the book what I realized is what most organizations are doing today may not help them select the best leaders.
[00:00:40] As a matter of fact in the marketplace over the last several months you hear a lot of stories and see a lot of evidence of someone got selected to a top leader job and after a certain amount of time six months, seven months, 12 months they feel.
[00:00:59] And they're being ushered out in some sort of capacity, they're going to take an advisory role and then they're opening up the search again for another leader.
[00:01:09] And Sarah I want to start with you on this because I know you're an expert on selection and assessment and so I want to start with you on how does that happen?
[00:01:20] I mean I can imagine that these organizations don't do some due diligence and and feel like they're making good choices. I'm sure they feel that but how is it that they select the wrong people?
[00:01:34] And then they're looking for a way to usher them out and package them out and a pretty short amount of time.
[00:01:40] I think part of the problem is all of that due diligence that we do isn't helping us make better predictions about who's going to be the best performer.
[00:01:50] You know when we wrote this book one of the earlier chapters outlines what we would call seven key errors that every company makes when selecting leaders.
[00:02:00] And I hope people read that chapter with the sense of humor and start to get real about the fact that we aren't that good at picking people. One of the first issues is around missile-lined incentives with search firms.
[00:02:15] So when you initiate the search what you're relying on that search firm to do is to give you their preferred candidates. And the assumption is that they're going to give you the very best candidates that they could find.
[00:02:28] But we've got to get real about the fact that they're when I talk about missile-lined incentives, what I really mean is that they want to close that search out quickly. They get paid on how quickly they close that search out.
[00:02:42] And so when they present candidates to you, you've just got to recognize that it might not actually be the best candidate. It's just their preference. Some of the other issues that we look at in that chapter are just around the simple fact that
[00:02:57] face-to-face interviews often reward like ability. So when we get leaders in a room with us and they are highly tenured, they've been in all of the right companies. They show up with a bit of confidence, right? It's so easy to build chemistry in those kinds of situations.
[00:03:16] And as soon as you start falling in love with candidates, then you start assigning capabilities and talents to them that might not actually be true. And you also take every other candidate less seriously than you should,
[00:03:30] because you've already developed a preference in your mind for the person that you like. And again, in the book, we're trying to help people realize that just because you like a person doesn't mean that they're the right fit for the role.
[00:03:44] So I want to ask a kind of a little kind of side question to that. And Pete, we do want to work with people we like though. And so I can see how someone would get caught in that.
[00:03:59] How they would be like, I really like this person and maybe they don't have all the qualities I'd like or maybe they don't have all the experience I would like. But by the way, there's a little bit of a, I can coach them. I can teach them.
[00:04:15] I can take like ability and turn it into confidence. I mean, if they are objective enough that there are obvious red flags in a candidate, that they're then rationalizing and saying, well, I can just coach these. I can cover these.
[00:04:31] We've got to realize that if that rationalization process is playing out so early, that should make you pause. Yeah. It should make you question whether or not that's really the right person just because you like them.
[00:04:45] Doesn't mean that as a leader, you should spend all of your time coaching and developing the obvious deficits that you see up front. And some of those things, it's kind of interesting. Some of those deficits and the things that would make you,
[00:05:00] that should make you think a candidate isn't the best fit for the role. A lot of those times, those don't get surfaced in the interview process because we're not often really well prepared for the interviews that we do conduct. They tend to be unstructured, free flowing.
[00:05:17] It's the questions that come to mind in the moment that help us develop a relationship with a person. It's really rare when we look at a company selection process that they've got good structured
[00:05:30] questions that are actually relevant enough to the role to help that hiring manager or to help that leader make the right decision. That's true, especially one of the things I've seen particularly on like ability is
[00:05:46] when I worked for Oracle, I had a client where I went to those company and this one individual was incredibly likable. And so much so that your like boy, that's a lot of like ability.
[00:06:00] I'll wrapped into one. And what I realized was that this person had gone from company to company for a decade or more and would stay about a year. And he was in the time I met him as in a situation where likability was starting to kind of come
[00:06:24] apart and the company was asking for results. And that's how we got called in. And so at some point I can see where likability does come apart a little bit if someone really can't deliver in the role.
[00:06:42] And I think what companies try and do to answer that performance question is they look at things like 360s, where they try and conduct reference checks, where we talk to people that have worked with you in the past. And you've got to recognize how subjective people's opinions
[00:06:58] are. So when I'm rating a leader on a 360, I'm looking at them through a very narrow window around the experience that I had working with them at a specific time and a specific company with unique circumstances and people tend to be overly positive in 360s anyway.
[00:07:19] They do. Right? And just because a lot of people have contributed to them, doesn't make them an objective predict, it doesn't make it an objective prediction about past performance and how that person is likely to show up in the role.
[00:07:34] Now I have to tell you a little vignette on 360s and this happened earlier in my career. I was working for a company where we decided to use 360s on the various teams in manufacturing.
[00:07:48] And one of the gentlemen said in a team meeting, he goes, here's the thing, if you can't find nine people to say that you're really great. The problem, the issue isn't
[00:08:01] what they'll say on the 360s. The issue is you can't find nine people that light you and that's more of a problem than anything they're going to say in a 360. And I kind of laughed because everyone
[00:08:14] was going through the list of who do I like, who likes me and who who's going to speak favorably about me. And so I totally get the the the objectivity issue with 360s at times.
[00:08:30] I've been invited to take 360s for people that I know. And sometimes the questions that they ask are terrible. If you just read through the questions themselves, you immediately should get the picture that these aren't telling me about how effectively this person performed.
[00:08:49] And it's a say, you know, it's a similar issue when you start looking at reference checks. If I'm cherry picking the people that I want you to call on my behalf as part of an interview
[00:08:59] process and those people can only come up with a glowing, really flowery recommendation around why I'm the best candidate that you can find. We always tell companies immediately disregard put that to the side it's not helping you. The other issue is that with reference checks,
[00:09:20] you know we shouldn't fall into the trap of assigning referees special powers that we don't possess ourselves. And you know the point I'm making there is that if a person nominates somebody there's a reference or even if you do what's called a back door reference where you know
[00:09:40] something in the company and you do a rather sereticious inquiry to find out what they are. It's an opinion. It's not in special, it's nothing, you know they're not carrying any special powers or any special insights. And the evidence that I would ask people to consider is this.
[00:09:58] Why do winter or Canada is fail at all? That's a great question. Why do they fail? And we know these people the best. We've probably been working with them for several years.
[00:10:14] I had a steam gets built up through an interview process. We think they show well, we like them. We promote them and then the question is why do they fail because they do.
[00:10:26] So even the people we know are the best where we have the most in so, where we've got the deepest knowledge we make mistakes. And what we're trying to do in the five talents that
[00:10:36] really matter is help people understand why those mistakes get made and then ultimately how to correct them and how to reduce the error rate in the appointments that you make. Now one of the things that Sarah mentioned I just want to touch on it, you know the face-to-face
[00:10:54] interview. Too many executives focus on the question. And you might say, well, is that what they're supposed to do? Well, here's how it goes. Executives have the either the pet questions that they like to ask.
[00:11:14] On the inside to go with a particular only difficult question. I've set with these executives when they've been doing this task. And I've hit them with the question, what do you expect to hear from the clueless? It's like prickets. So they think of a question.
[00:11:33] And then they're going to interpret the answer in the moment, depending on whether it agrees with their presuppositions. And it's a silly game that they're playing. We know some trumpets have got extremely desertric questions that they ask.
[00:11:52] But they think teaches them, um, in orderly important things about the candidates, their interview, Google spends for this with their, you know, their infamous, how they ping-pong bowls fit inside a school bus or something like this. And I don't know what they think
[00:12:10] they're learning about a candidate, but it has absolutely nothing to do with their ultimate performance. So the face to face interviews are a problem. But then the last thing I want to mention
[00:12:21] on these, because we've been talking about like ability and I've got a slightly different take on this. I think leaders should appoint people they actively don't like. They should give them serious consideration. I don't think like abilities are very helpful mechanism.
[00:12:40] When people talk to me of chemistry, the hair stand up on the back of my neck because what it really means is, you know, we're in the same social group. We've got the same places. We do the same things. We've got similar attitudes. We like each other.
[00:12:55] Well, how about a point in a candidate who's brilliant, you dislike them? Two few leaders have prepared to take that step. Now I'll tell you something, Palette. One of the most important stages in my career was working with a brilliant person that I
[00:13:13] thoroughly detested. I would never go to coffee with them. You know, there was no they weren't on my birthday card list. I didn't have a big birthday card list as he was. But these people I would even
[00:13:26] talk about at home. My goodness, they were brilliant. They made me better, but I didn't like them. If that's at, that's a great point. How many leaders are willing to select someone
[00:13:43] that makes them better? That challenges them. I mean, isn't it true that they say they want that, but then often don't pick it? I was giving feedback to one of our leadership candidates yesterday.
[00:13:57] And one of the characteristics we measure is just the ability to read people at the level of their psychology to kind of figure out what makes a person tick without having to ask a lot
[00:14:07] of questions. And when we find really strong evidence of that, you get people who are actually really sophisticated in interviews. They build stronger teams because they've got a way of reading
[00:14:19] people and thinking through how they position. And this guy didn't have any of that. And I tried to make the point to him that he was going to be most vulnerable in interview situations where he's
[00:14:32] got to make judgments about who the right person is on his team because what he's actually going to do is play some preference for people who show up and exhibit and talk about the same
[00:14:42] characteristics that he had, which is incredible work ethic. I level of discipline and detail orientation, but more than action orientation in terms of wanting to get things done really quickly. And we were talking about what good partners looked like for him and it was the slow
[00:15:02] deliberate thinkers who ask annoying questions who want to slow the process down. And those are the people too. You're on various point that are going to annoy you, but could make you so much better if you appreciated that kind of quality. So we had a great conversation
[00:15:18] about this exact issue. Yeah, I mean you hear so often and throughout my career I've heard over and over again. We actually hire people like ourselves. We want people like ourselves. And I have to say I've seen a lot, probably the majority of higher senior leaders have made.
[00:15:42] They choose people they like, they choose people like themselves. And it may or may not work. It's not a surefire solution when you hire people like yourself. It doesn't work out all the time.
[00:15:57] It's a big problem, padlock for a couple of reasons. One of them is everybody denies that they do that. Yes, that's true. When you ask the question, do you take people like yourselves? Everybody knows the correct answer to that question and it's no. Because they were too
[00:16:15] admitted, the next question is, well why do you pick people different to yourself? So it ignores the game that they're playing. But here's the problem. When we get called into companies and we start carrying out our validated leadership assessment to really figure out
[00:16:33] what makes each person take, what's each person's path to brilliance. I guess the corollary to that is how effective it does it all work together. We often assess teams and what we get the results like, it says, well, we've scanned a village in Western Nebraska.
[00:16:51] Everybody is almost from the same genetic path. They think the same way, they act the same way. Now they look physically different and sometimes they are different in terms of gender, different in terms of race. But they're not different in terms of their psychological
[00:17:10] characteristics. Part of the reason for that is that when we look at people who have got similar characteristics to ourselves, we tend to read them higher because of that. It's in a way, it's an
[00:17:23] inverse form of self-praise because I'm good. Look at me. I'm in a leadership position and I'm evaluating you. Oh, you've got similar characteristics to me. That must mean you're going to be good too. Before you know it, everybody really is cut from the same plough. Even though leaders
[00:17:43] deny that they're building teams like themselves, they're not, they are bringing in people who are radically diverse and thinking lots of different ways. It's not the truth. That's one of the biggest impediments to team-perform. Less so individual-performs but certainly team-performs.
[00:18:01] Let's move a little bit. One of the other things you mentioned about selection and its connection to the brand. What happens to the brand during this election process, particularly when
[00:18:22] it doesn't go well? Well I'm going to let Sarah answer this but I'm going to put a little bit more before she does that. Let me just describe the typical experience of average executive trying to get a job in whatever company and this can be a mid-sized company,
[00:18:43] it could be a large company. They have to put their resume together and then there is a resume filter. Some people are rejected based on what they're right on paper. It's actually quite ludicrous when
[00:18:54] you think of it but that's what they do. But then what happens is a few people get called to interview but it's not one interview. It's not as though you go for an interview. You might be meeting
[00:19:08] 10-12 people in what our segments read out over a couple of days every couple of weeks. All these people, all these candidates are getting exposed to all these people. Here's what we learn from candidates. Nobody's prepared. The duplication of questions is enormous. So it's a so-be interview
[00:19:35] was haven't really got together to figure out who's going to ask this question, who's going to ask that question. The dominant impression that comes out of it is that the candidates don't fit
[00:19:44] the company and know what they're doing. I've been said that, I'm like Sarah feeling the rich and vibrant details of how they destroy you brand. I mean, if you've got a leadership role open
[00:20:01] and you're looking at multiple candidates in the process, these things do take time to various points sometimes these decisions play out over weeks or months and I think there's this pressure that people in the company feel that keeps those candidates warm to be incredibly positive about
[00:20:19] the process that we're leading them through to try and be really affirming about why we think there's such a great candidate because we've got to keep them warm as this process plays out.
[00:20:29] But what happens is you get to the end of that the decision is made and for those unsuccessful candidates, we find that way too often these people get ghosted by the company. Sometimes they're not
[00:20:43] even given callbacks to say that they haven't gotten the job. Sometimes they are calling emailing whoever the recruiter is or the HR partner who's managing that search and they can even get a response.
[00:20:58] So you think about how damaging it is to a company's brand when as a leader, I've invested months in this process. I've been as responsive and positive as I think I can be.
[00:21:10] Only to get to the very end and then hear nothing. Or you get to the very end and you do know that you were unsuccessful but you're given no feedback in that process. So for us when we take people
[00:21:24] through our leadership assessment, I tell every candidate we will give you feedback when this process includes regardless of the outcome whether you join the company or not. I want to hear
[00:21:35] from you. I want to know the decision. I want your back on our calendar so we can share what we learned. And people are always in shock when I say that because so often the experience is completely
[00:21:47] be opposite where they don't get feedback. They put their time into doing these assessments and whatever hoops the company's designed they jump through and they don't learn anything about what that company is learning about them. So we always try and own our part of the process and
[00:22:03] make sure that we respect people's time and that we share what we learned about them. And I find that to be a very rare experience for a lot of leadership candidates. I think that's one of the
[00:22:16] things to add to that. If I may have come along, but the first is that it's not just the companies' ghost, these candidates and they just ignore them or they don't give them any feedback
[00:22:34] at all. It's that during the process when there would be in kept warm, it would be until extremely positive things about the answer. And then when it gets to the end, the turnaround
[00:22:47] said, well, all I heard were positive things. How can I not be chosen? And it creates just a lot of noise and confusion. And I think the reason why companies ghost these candidates
[00:23:03] is that the candidates are going to ask some pretty tough questions. Well, you told me this or you told me that or whatever it is. There's not a really easy answer to that. That question.
[00:23:15] I think the second point about these about the candidate experience that I want to make is there are some companies that do a fantastic job. And I'll tell you what happens with those companies. They don't oversell to the candidate, the nature of the job and they don't
[00:23:39] gush over the candidate as a means of keeping them warm in the process. What they do is they simply say, hey, here we are, matter of fact, we've gone through this first stage here,
[00:23:51] next stage takes place here. We're going to ask you to do this. But these companies don't mislead their candidates. They don't say things to them that aren't true. They don't give them hints. That's to whether they're a strong candidate. I mean, we've had situations where
[00:24:09] candidates have told us that they come out of interviews and said, I was told I was brilliant. Only a month or two later they didn't get a job. So they went from peacock to feather dusters in writing that down. peacock to feather duster. I love it.
[00:24:29] So these are the problems that companies really have to sort out. And what Sarah and I commit to do is to probably do a better job of managing the brand of the client than the client
[00:24:43] does themselves because to form out perspective it's a white blood treatment. Everybody that's absolutely top-notch executive, we treat them with the utmost of respect that we commit to give them feedback and the feedback is designed to help them because if they don't get this job,
[00:25:00] maybe they'll get another job somewhere else. That our advice could help set them up for success. So there will work to be done there. There are two few companies that have spent time thinking about the damage they do to their brand by not getting that part right.
[00:25:17] Absolutely. And ghosting, particularly since the pandemic on as the job market shifts and you know, there were openings in some areas less than others. Ghosting's gone up. You see people writing about it all the time. I was part of 15 interview processes. Nobody ever got
[00:25:36] back to me. And ghosting is prevalent today. Used to be companies were complaining that candidates ghosted them. And now, this year was on the other foot and they don't remember what it was like to be ghosted apparently because they are ghosting people. Now we'll tell you one
[00:25:53] little story of who doesn't ghost people and a company that I thought did this while is virgin in the UK. They had a philosophy that said every person that interviews with us could be a potential
[00:26:07] customer if they're not already. They could be a customer of some part of our portfolio. And so our goal is to find the right people to fill our open roles, but it's also to create
[00:26:21] customers to create good relationships with these people. So they wanted you business with us, whether we hire them or not because who knows at some point we may call them back. We may want
[00:26:33] them to come in and interview for another role. And I thought their approach was just so practical and so respectful because even if you didn't get the job, if I really worked on having a connection
[00:26:48] with you. So you felt good about the brand, it's good for the brand and it's good for the person. It's very respectful to the individual. So I wanted actually move on to a couple of things here.
[00:27:06] So we know what people are doing that might not be working and it might be suboptimal in terms of their hiring process. What should they be doing instead? Well, I don't think face-to-face
[00:27:23] interviews are going to go away. Yeah, that's true. Well there is an absolute need for some form of human contact, although we seem to have mastered it by a video through the pandemic in a number of
[00:27:36] cases, but the left is put back to one side for a second. There is a need for face-to-face interaction. French met Stephen Hunter produced a really interesting research paper and it was back in the 2006. And they looked at the efficacy of face-to-face interviews in terms of
[00:28:01] selecting candidates who were more likely to perform better once they've been picked. Although they did a metronolidical study of a lot of research and face-to-face interviews, and what they found was really quite interesting. They say if you want to get the biggest
[00:28:18] bail for your book from face-to-face interviews, quit the round robbing nonsense. Quitting, it's not doing anything for you. There isn't, you know, when people say what's best practice in selection, there is no such thing as best practice with regard to
[00:28:37] round robbing interviews. There's just malpractice. And you know what they recommended was this. Ideally set an interview panel of three people, ideally. The optimal number was found by doing a regression in the size of different panels and the ease with which they were able to make a
[00:29:02] decision that seemed to have some predictive value regarding a candidate's future success. So they said the number is three. You could go to four better not stick to three and dobe at one. Get that group of three people together and agree also actually criteria.
[00:29:20] Agreed what it is that you're looking for. And this work has to be done while in advance of the interview, not five minutes before which is what typically happens. So this panel puts together the interview criteria. Essentially the selection criteria and these are the elements
[00:29:35] that we're looking for. And then they said design questions aimed at testing each of those areas and you might ask more than one question for a particular area. So let's say, it's really important that we have somebody with strong commercial mindset. Okay that's critical for this position.
[00:29:57] Well okay so what questions might we ask the tractor water commercial mindset? So you develop those questions and in our book by the way, we've done what a hard work for you because in
[00:30:08] the back of the book we've got bombs of brilliant questions with expected answers by the way to help you make its selection. So I'll be sure to get a book and read there. And then they said when
[00:30:21] you go into the interview with a candidate, only one person asks the question. Nobody else asks questions. The others just take notes. So there's a candidate in front of you, there are three people, one person's asking questions and you don't speak at all except
[00:30:39] to introduce themselves. Everybody just takes notes based on those questions. Now why? Well if you don't do that then you have each person asking questions rather than listening to what the candidate says, the person's thinking of the wording for that question. Yes they're up next so all they're
[00:30:59] thinking in their mind is they're going to get the wording right. It was a brilliant research recommendation. And I have to tell you, Pamela, it's as all nobody's ready. Very nice. It's as though nobody's even considered this. But what they found was if you behave that way
[00:31:21] and you get to the end of the interview for the candidate, you do all your story on your criteria, immediately at the end of the interview that you don't discuss it. And if you do that for each
[00:31:32] candidate and you add up all the scores, if you actually go with the candidate that you scored the highest, they're the ones that are more likely to be the better form in the future role. Now it's not as good as a research assessment like the one we've built.
[00:31:48] I can't see, it gives you a lift and you would think organisations would implement it but it's as though they've never heard about it. We talk about it in the fall. One of the things that I've been really impressed with over the course of your career very
[00:32:08] and Sarah is that you talk about assessments that are predictive of performance and potential and to me that's like giving me kind of a view to how this person might work out in the
[00:32:25] company. This is how well could you do in this situation because so few things, so few assessments out there or processes out there are actually predictive of performance and potential. And if you told me, if I pick candidate A-Day, there's a nine out of ten chance they're going
[00:32:44] to be a top performer, I'd go, where do I find more of these? Because we don't have those kinds of guarantees and I'm almost every situation. So I want to just we were little, we're kind
[00:32:58] of running on time. So just for a couple minutes if you could talk about the predictive nature your assessment methodology and how it does predict performance and potential. Briefly, Pamela, it starts with studying outstanding performance in the role and with our
[00:33:19] leadership assessment, we will dig into that in a future podcast. But the idea is we study brilliant leaders we learn from them. We find out that they achieve success in different ways. So we develop
[00:33:34] a talent model that captures all those different ways in which leaders are successful. And the assessment is built from the talent model. So once we know what the talent is out that we're looking for, we then develop questions that are designed to separate really strong performers from
[00:33:48] those who are average or weak. And there are also different questions that we ask, but when we aggregate the responses to those questions, it amounts to a statistical prediction of success and you're point about who we want to know about this. This assessment doesn't take selection
[00:34:11] decisions for companies, which is it that way of fact? If a company came to us and said, what your assessments to give us, the best, you know, for us to appoint the best candidates based
[00:34:24] on your assessment, we're probably refuse to work with them. We don't want the assessment to take into decision. We want the assessment in following the decision. Yes. That means you balance it against all the other characteristics that you know, but the assessment carries predictive
[00:34:41] validity because of the nature that research that went into building it. But it's one of those pieces of information that I don't know any CEO would not want a note before they were the candidate because these are people you don't know very well if they're external. This is
[00:35:00] giving you an insight into how they're likely to operate and ultimately how they're likely to perform. You can balance out against all the other candidates in the information you have all
[00:35:11] then. You'd be a fool to say no. I mean, why wouldn't one buy information? Exactly. So for that leads to our last question, Sarah. I'll direct this to you and Barry. Also please comment, what advice would you give an organization that's wanting to improve their selection process?
[00:35:36] Well, listening to the last couple of questions that you've had paneling the value of companies finding more leaders who are just going to knock it out of the park. And everyone wants that, but what we've got to recognize is that those truly exceptional
[00:35:51] leaders are really quite rare. There aren't so many of them and I think if I were to give one piece of advice beyond what Barry was talking about with structured interviews is that I hope companies can hold themselves back a bit longer to surface more candidates
[00:36:12] in the process because we've been involved in so many searches where there's only a single candidate or the role. And then, by definition, they're the best candidate because they're all we've got. Right? I love it. We have one candidate and they're the best.
[00:36:28] And they're the best because we have no other options. And those are always the most dangerous situations because we come out with a candidate who really isn't the right match for the role.
[00:36:38] Now, it might be brilliant in other areas with the company. There might be a role for them in the future, but for this particular one, it's obviously not the right fit. And because we've invested
[00:36:50] so much time in a single candidate, we're all the way to the end of the process. Now we start rationalizing how it might make it work. So maybe one of the pieces of advice I would give is
[00:37:01] hold yourself back long enough to surface multiple, credible candidates. Put those all the way through the process. Right now, I think companies are narrowing their options way too early. Yes. The other thing is be very clear when you're working with search firms to separate
[00:37:22] the sourcing of candidates from the assessment of candidates. So, to many search firms right now, we'll know all the assessment practices completely oblivious to the obvious conflict of interest there exists. So we discuss this in detail in the book. Search firms do a fantastic job.
[00:37:40] You know, we partner with some great search firms. They are experts at finding candidates. So let's test them on that. You can add the assessment of candidates carried out by a completely independent
[00:37:53] group. And that way you'll end up with the best candidate. That's true. That's true. So thank you so much. For talking with us today on selection, on how we can get it right and how companies can be more
[00:38:11] successful, picking the right leaders for their businesses. And if you're interested in reading more about this, please go to Amazon and pre order the book, the five talents that really matter. It comes out on August 27th. And thank you Barry. Thank you Sarah. And we'll be talking
[00:38:31] with Bury and Sarah again in the six part series on the five talents that really matter. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Bumla.
Sponsors
