Latest / Integrity at Scale™ / Listener Q&A: How Do You Build the Leadership Team You’re Becoming?

Transcript

Listener Q&A: How Do You Build the Leadership Team You’re Becoming? · Integrity at Scale™

• All righty, friends. Thank you for listening to the Culture Focus Practice. I am Dr. Tara Vossenkemper, your host for the episode, and really all the episodes. So this is a little bit different. I had a former mastermind client, two actually, they were on a leadership team together, so Amy and Brittany with Tiny Planet Counseling, send me some emails with questions, you know, some follow-up questions. They are great questions, and I got consent from them to both use their names, and also to record the episode and then use it as a podcast, which would benefit them, but potentially other people who are in similar situations. So we are doing our first ever listener Q&A, which is very exciting. Okay, so we've got a series of three questions. Let me give a little bit of context. So again, I'm talking about Amy and Brittany. They're with Tiny Planet Counseling. Brittany is moving into the integrator seat. They operate on EOS, so she's moving into the integrator seat. That's the planned transition. Amy is right now both in the visionary and the integrator seat, but she wants to move entirely into the visionary seat. Amy's currently, like many of us visionaries, living in another seat, their clinical director seat, and they are seeking to get her out of that entirely and to hire a clinical director. So we've got, like, a few transitions that are planned and need to take place. So I say that they're operating on EOS. I think you all know that we operate on EOS. I'm gonna answer these questions with EOS framework, but I think it's known, and in case it's not, I'm not a certified implementer. I love traction, I love EOS, I love that world. Doesn't make me an implementer. So I'm doing this from my own experience rather than by the book, this is what it says. I just want to clarify that before we get started. the agenda, I'm just gonna give you sort of an overview of the three questions. Agenda item number one, design the clinical director role without creating more overlap. Second agenda item is practice the integrator role before the title changes. And then third is add a fifth leadership team seat or leader without breaking the L10. So here are the questions, and there's probably more context, but I just tried to whittle down, you know, distill down the questions. Also, I would have loved my own integrator to be here with me, but our schedules just did not line up to record this, so you know, here we are tit for tat. agenda item number one, design the clinical director role without creating more overlap. The question is, since the clinical director will take pieces of my role, Amy's role, and the clinical team lead's role, how should we think about designing that position so it actually supports the EOS structure rather than creating another layer of overlap? I feel like almost I don't know naturally, whenever we think about creating a role or creating a seat on our accountability chart, whether it's leadership or not, we are often thinking about, how do we create a seat and then all of these tasks that are kind of falling through the cracks for other people, like, they'll go into that seat? And that's kind of the approach that we take. That is the antithesis of what you actually want to do. So whenever we're doing something like creating seats, what we really want to do is... I don't wanna say, like, clear the decks. Like, you're not scrapping everything that you currently have, but the seat that you are creating, it has to be a seat that supports the current needs of the business and the business within the next, like, six to 12 months. That's kind of what I remember reading in Traction, what my understanding of EOS is like we want something that supports us right now and for the next almost, like, leg of our development. So if you're doing that, it almost feels like a conceptual shift. Instead of thinking like, I need this role to do X, Y, and Z," I almost think it's stepping back and up a level and thinking from the highest level conceptually, what does a clinical director do? At this practice, what is it that we'd need our clinical director to be doing? For me, what comes to mind immediately is ensuring clinical quality, some high level of, auditing clinical leadership, whether it's attunement or metrics related to clinical supervision or any other clinical leadership roles or yeah, like clinical team leads. You know, that's something that we have. So not being immediately connected with all of the clinicians. This also depends on the number of clinicians that you might have at your practice. So if you have five, the clinical director is gonna be much more in tune with the individual people. But as you grow, if you have even 12, there might be a slight layer of separation, one additional, like, role in between the clinical director and the rest of the clinical team. So my point is there's something about the more providers you have, the ownership or accountability, is about the leadership right underneath you or the clinical sort of leadership right underneath you rather than each individual provider. Of course, if there's people who are reporting to that seat, there would be LMA, which is the EOS formula leadership plus management equals accountability. Probably I would do something with clinical programming and services. So again, using EOS from an accountability chart perspective, you typically have the seat name or the title, and then you'll have like ... I think of them almost as thematic or, global responsibilities and not specific responsibilities that you would find on a position description, for example. So start high level with what do you envision a clinical director doing. Do not put a person in that seat. Don't think and again, knowing that Amy was in that seat, the question right now should not be, well, what does Amy have capacity for as clinical director, and then that's how we design the seat. No, Amy's not gonna be there, and we don't even want Amy in that seat. We want Amy to be visionary. So instead it's if we had a clinical director, what should they be responsible for? And then from there, I would start to, like, fan out from there. So if I got that relatively established, right? I thought to myself, like, "Ooh, okay, when I think of a clinical director for this business, this is what I envision." At that point, then I might say, "Okay, now let me look at the practice manager. Now let me look at the integrator. Now let me look over here." Like, where is there overlap with other seats? Where are other seats maybe doing things that don't belong to them, like, that shouldn't live in that seat. They should actually be over in the clinical director seat. So if I say, for example Clinical phone screens, any phone screens for clinicians theoretically should live with the clinical director. They are like the first gatekeeping process, you know, for any sort of clinical hires. And you know that on the current accountability chart, one of the core responsibilities for, let's say, your integrator or if you have a separate seat that's purely HR, maybe there's something there where they're doing all of the phone screenings and all of the hiring stuff. That's one of the things like, oh, actually no HR phone screens should be department level. Like HR owns the process, but the execution of phone screens would be department level. And so that's like how you might start to tease things out. That's a little more nuanced, I think. And again, it depends on like size and what you have in place, but that's just an example of there might be overlap with other seats and It's less about how do we ensure that the tasks that are falling through the cracks go somewhere and more about what's the structure that we need for the business and, like, the next iteration of it? So designing the position almost like the simplest thing I would recommend that you do is Ignore people. Don't think about the people at the business. Don't think about who's in what seat. Just think about the roles as, like, their own entities, and conceptualize what should a clinical director do at Tiny Planet Counseling. Like, what should this role be responsible for? What should it globally do? What are the five core responsibilities? And then to me, that's where the answer comes from, is if you can get clear on that, it's almost like all the rest of it just gets tucked away. Because if you have the core responsibilities figured out, and then you're wondering, well, what about this task? Like, who should be doing this? You don't have to remember it. It's not like Tara is saying, "Well, so and so should do this task." My question instead is who's responsible? Like, what makes sense with regard to ownership of this task from an accountability chart perspective? Who should own it based on their core responsibilities? I really hope that answers your question. I do think also going the route of the accountability chart, this helps to make things visible for everybody. So when you're talking about, I think for any accountability chart updates, very rarely will I say we need this, like, this thing needs to be done. I have done that where I just realize, like, oh, shit, this needs updated. This is the seat we need, or this is something we're missing, and it just kind of like clicks, but then at that point, I'm gonna take it to my leadership team, and we're gonna talk about it, or I'm gonna take it to my integrator, and she and I are gonna be on the same page first. Then we're gonna go to the leadership team, you know, and debate, discuss, et cetera. But what I would also say is the visibility piece from this comes from debating, discussing, engaging about this with the leadership team. And again, the rule is, like, don't think about person and seat before the seat even exists. The mental ask, I guess there's a couple mental asks, but one is to just think about the seat and what is needed for the practice. I hope that makes sense. Actually, I have one more thought. After you do that, like sort of rethink the accountability chart and sort of the core responsibilities, go through and think about all of the tasks that, are either not getting done or don't really belong in the seats that are doing them. And then if you get into this position where you realize oh my God, I'm in this seat and I don't have capacity to do all this stuff, that's kind of a different conversation, you know? And it might be 'cause you're in in Amy's case, you know that you're in multiple seats, so of course you're not gonna have capacity to be fully in the clinical director seat because you're in multiple seats. Like it doesn't really, you know, it's hard to do that. Okay, now I think that I'm officially done. So I'm gonna go on to agenda item number two and question number two: practice the integrator role before the title changes And then the question is from Brittany, and it is, "Given where we are now, what would you recommend I intentionally start doing over the next six to 12 months to develop into the integrator, even though I'm not officially in that seat yet?" Honestly, I would recommend-- I don't mean to, like, keep plugging EOS, but I know you all are operating using EOS and trying to, I think as much as possible hold true to that. I would look at the Integrator Master Class, and then after that, the Integrator Mastery Forum, which is a monthly membership. I think there's, like, a mastermind. There's virtual quarterly, like, meetings that are pretty lengthy. I'm saying that because my own integrator is in that master class in the forum, and It's been pretty fucking awesome. And that has been helpful. I can't speak for Taylor, but I will say on the outside she just seems to have way more confidence and more of an embodied understanding of the integrator role And I think also she's always been willing to say no to me, which I need and appreciate. So that's still in place, but it also seems like there's a little bit more, um, I don't know. I think just groundedness. Like, it feels less like, sure, you could say confidence, but a competence maybe. I think she has a stronger sense of competence as integrator, and that is bleeding out into the rest of the leadership team, which has been really nice. Another thing is that we started doing an integrator scorecard, when Taylor and I meet for our visionary integrator, our VI, our same-page meetings, we're looking at the scorecard together, and the scorecard is 100% right people, right seats, 90% of to-dos are done across the board, 80% of rock completion. I think at least an 80% L10 rating. Uh, like the average should be higher than 8 out of 10, you know? At minimum, it should be eight my point is with the integrator responsible for these things, we know the integrator should be the one facilitating like L-10 style meetings, leadership level meetings. I think that feels like a conceptual shift for both Taylor and also for myself. Like, she had been facilitating meetings, but it went from facilitating to owning. The integrator owns the leadership level meetings. They're her responsibility. And think about the integrator. The way that I understand it, that that seat is responsible for anything that's kind of cross-departmental. So not only is she accountable for the leadership team members who report to her, who report to the integrator, she's accountable for them, so she's holding their feet to the fire when their metrics are off. So if you'd, you know, dive into, let's say clinical director metrics, they're a little bit more in depth than what you might see on the leadership team scorecard, you know? So that, for example, our integrator's gonna be more, I hate to say in a attunement with, but like a little more attuned and a little more like, "Hey, this number's off. Why is it not changing?" And like that sort of thing, like holding them accountable. And then also Since the integrator scorecard is those things, like I said, you know, right people, right seat, to-dos, rocks, et cetera She's been way more, focused on, accountable for the success of the leadership L10s. That's a conceptual shift that I think you could start working towards basically immediately. But something more practical would be, if you could, the integrator masterclass, which you would go through EOS and do that, and it's virtual. And then the Integrator Mastery Forum Those would be my, like main recommendations. Additionally, it would be start thinking about, and maybe you and Amy together can do this. This is where, like, same page stuff really can, come into play. The two of you can start talking and thinking about what are the things that are happening that are cross-departmental. Because anything that requires, like, cross-departmental functioning or overlap, from my perspective, that has to sit with the integrator. That's like the function of the integrator is to almost, like, synthesize the entire team all together. I also think it's almost like a filtration system for the visionary sometimes, the ideas and, you know, whatever. And in essence, like, bringing the vision to life, like ensuring that the VTO is on track, that we're actually building out this thing that we are, like, set out to do in the first place. My guess is a lot of the things that are happening are a lot of the things that Amy is probably owning as visionary. Or I mean she's in both seats technically, so there's like visionary integrator. To me, it would start to be like catalog those things, you know. The two of you can catalog those things. It might be try to access tools and resources to learn more and, like, lean into what do integrators do? How do I do this? How do I implement this at my own practice or at Tiny Planet? And then also, be thinking about, like, scorecard for yourself, you know, like the integrator scorecard and how would I hold people accountable and, like, that's where my brain goes. So hopefully that's helpful. Okay, I'm gonna keep going then. So let's do question number three and agenda item number three. Add a fifth leader without breaking L10. The question from Brittany is: With the addition of a clinical director... For the record, the seat already exists. It's the movement, removing Amy from there and adding a person into the seat. I just wanna add that context. So with the addition of a clinical director, meaning a new person in that seat, our leadership team would grow to five people. Do you have any thoughts on the ideal size of a leadership team, ooh, from an EOS perspective, and how adding a fifth person might impact the L10, particularly the flow, efficiency, and ability to have meaningful discussion and solve issues effectively? First of all, my answer is no. I do not know anything from an EOS perspective about the ideal size of a leadership team, meaning, like, I can't draw upon anything that I've heard or read that speaks to this. My answer is I do not know. That would be a, that's a great question, for the record. My, again, not certified implementer, but avid EOS user take would be the leadership team is supposed to be comprised of leaders who own core functions of the group. And so I think that all of the same kind of like rules of L10 stay in place. No tangents. We're still doing segue in the same way. We're still doing scorecard. We're dropping shit down to the issues list that is off in scorecard. We are still doing headlines quickly, you know, not like 10 minutes for status updates and headlines. Fucking awful. Pull my hair out if that happens. We still have like issues list items. The integrator, of course, God love Taylor for this 'cause she is better at this than I am any time somebody starts doing a status update or starts talking about a scorecard, the integrator says, "Hang on. No, let's just... If we need to talk about it, we'll add it to the issues list," and then boop, it gets added there. And then when it comes to the actual issues list, the rules are the same. No politicking, no tangents, and integrator has final decision. That's it. If you're at a stalemate, so if it's like everybody's kind of on board, and the integrator's the only one that's like, "Ooh, I don't know," not based on like the business structure, but based on, "That feels funny to me," like maybe that's a separate conversation. But in terms of We're operating as a leadership team. Some people might bow out. Like, I know there are times where my DFA, my director of finance and admin will say, " I don't have input on this. You know, I don't know enough about this clinical side of things to have any feedback from a billing perspective or from a DFA perspective. Like, this thing is fine kind of like I'm out." I think it's bound to happen that there are instances where not everybody has input. Not everything is going to impact or touch or be connected to every single seat on the leadership team But the leadership team L10s Should not be department specific issues that are being worked through. Department specific issues should be owned by that department head and/or taken to the integrator if there's any, like, hang up. And if it needs to go higher, the integrator might say, "You know what? Let's actually move this to the leadership team 'cause I want input from these other three people." But it shouldn't be like, this clinical number is low, and I just wanna talk out loud about it. That's not a leadership level conversation. That's a clinical director needs to own it and seek to solve it, and if they're stuck, then they deal with it in their one-to-one with the integrator. And if it actually does touch more seats, the integrator and the CD would say, " Shit, we need the DFA involvement or we need marketing assessment as well, so let's bump it over." I'm getting a little bit stuck now in L10, like specifics of when to move things. But my point remains the same. They would function almost, like, exactly in the same way. This would actually be interesting. If you had five people on your leadership team We have four right now, but there's six seats total. So two of us are in two seats, which of course is we're, you know, there's plans for this to move And I have thought, "Okay, we're gonna have six people on a leadership team Are all six seats actually relevant, or is one there because you know, it's the same person in two seats? Does it actually belong there? So yeah, I think One assessment would be, and this is... Look, I'm gonna be honest with you, there's, like, nothing that is sacred from a structural perspective to me. The things that are sacred are the values and the almost, like, leadership manifesto, like how we engage in decision-making, Like, our philosophy of leadership. Like, how we show up as people, as humans, as, like, relationally, that is the sacred stuff. The structure of things is like, ah, fuck, it's always malleable. I don't know. Like, whatever might work today is great, but it might not work in six months, and if it's not working, then it should change. So I'm saying that because This might be a case where you look at your accountability chart, you get the clinical director seat figured out. Like, let's just take people off the fucking map, look at the accountability chart. What's a clinical director need to own? What do they need to own? And then we sort of go from there. And then my thought would be for this, the next question or one of the questions would be, is every seat on the leadership team responsible for a core function of the practice? And if the answer is no, then might not be a leadership team seat. And by responsible, I don't mean that they are executing. So our client care coordinator, for example, that seat is, super important, but it's not a leadership team seat because it's almost entirely execution-based. There's not much in the way of Ownership over changing processes or workflows. Any decision that gets made, basically it's gonna go up. This person might have a recommendation or say, "Look, the way we do this kind of sucks. I was thinking we should do this instead." And then leadership team or their department head would be the one to say, "Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's do it." But client care wouldn't be The one making the change, so they're not necessarily accountable for any, like, processes, workflows, ownership of, like ability to change. They're responsible for the execution, which is super important, but it's not, like, responsibility for the core function, if that makes sense. My point is If all the same rules apply from an L10 with four people to an L10 with five people or seven or two or shit, maybe nine or 10 You would stop that when it started to happen. You would stop the status updates, you would stop the tangents, you would stop the politicking, you would ensure that things were debated clearly and thoroughly and fully, and then you would decide, and then you would document any to-dos that you had, and then you would move on. Issue solved. Let's keep going. I don't think it will be problematic. I do think that, like with anything, whenever you bring somebody on, there will be a transition period. So I would give a few months, honestly. I would say to this person, "You know, the way we run meetings is, whoever steps into that seat, that CD seat," I would let them know, like, "The way we run meetings is very intentional. And so I want you to contribute. I want you to engage." For each, you know, I would walk through each section of the meeting and kind of what we expect out of each one. That way they're, like, taught how we do this, and then let them know in advance, like, you might get cut off sometimes. Everybody does. I'm gonna call out if there's a tangent. If we start talking about an unrelated issue while we're talking about X and then someone, now we're, like, starting to talk about Y, I'm gonna say, "Hey, wait a second. Let's put Y on the issues list. Let's get back to the task at hand. Let's focus on X." So when that happens, just note that this is normal. And then over the course of those few months of that person being in the meeting, being taught how to do it, getting live feedback, you know, if they start to tangent or politic or whatever, or give a status update and they're stopped, they will learn and it'll stay like what it was. Realistically, it'll stay efficient. You'll still be solving things, discussing them, et cetera. So of course, people are gonna have less airtime in general 'cause you're adding a fifth person, and so just the time gets divided up differently. But I don't think that has to mean anything about the quality of the meeting or about the speed or efficiency with which issues get solved. So I think that answers your question One final thing I would say is that this is just a me thing. If I ever wanna talk about something or if I'm like I wanna know how the meetings are going maybe two months in, three months into this new person in the seat, I would just add it to the issues list. Let's talk real quick. Like, you know, the issue is that I don't have feedback on how these meetings are going. I mean, we have the rating, of course, we have this, but, like, who's confused about any of the ways in which we're engaging in the meeting? Who's confused about what's tangent versus what's not? You could seek clarity right then if you needed to really by adding it as an issue on your issues list. I think that's it. Let's synthesize, you know? So why this Q&A? Well, I hope that answer is clear without me even saying anything, but this is all about leadership transitions. And so I think they can become One, they can just be overwhelming to think about, especially when something isn't enacted yet or in action. It can be sort of like, "Oh, fuck," what do I do and how does it feel?" I know, I... Like, speaking for myself, I am absolutely experiential. It is both a major blessing and a major fucking curse because I can be totally on board with something, and then the minute I get into it and start doing it, I realize, nope, this is wrong. Something is wrong. And it might be where I, like, go back on, yeah, sorry, y'all, like I said this, but this is not it. So I'm saying that because it can just be a little anxiety-provoking not to know what to expect, you know, whenever you're stepping into something. And I feel like it just is. Like, it just is anxiety-provoking or it just is unknown, and not that has to be scary, but, you know, unknown is ambiguous and ambiguous is uncomfortable. It's it's uncomfortable for a lot of people, especially with so many because, Brittany, you especially, You're not just stepping into integrator. When you step into integrator, you're becoming other people's boss, so you're stepping into a leadership role that is now accountable for other leadership team members. Like, that's kind of a BFD, you know? It's kind of a big deal. And now we have this other seat where- At least for a short time, I don't know the exact timing of things, but potentially you're in the integrator seat and Amy is still in the clinical director seat. You might be holding Amy accountable while also reporting to her as visionary, which, uh, that can be kind of a, a fragile line. And I don't mean fragile because I, I know you and Amy a little bit enough. You know, I think I know Amy a little bit more, but I know it's not a problem with her specifically. Like, she of all people I think would be great. But that doesn't make the situation any less odd. Like, it might be a little odd where, you know, we start to engage about something and then Amy might be kind of flitting from clinical director seat to visionary seat, and that can make it hard. So I think that's something just to, as I'm talking, it's like, oh, no, no, no, that's just something to keep in mind. But ultimately, I think for all of us, this is more like global, any of these leadership team transitions can feel, ambiguous. They can feel a little bit, scary, anxiety provoking, unknown. Maybe that is the best word This also still kind of fits in with the quarterly arc of the episodes. And so if I'm thinking about the quarterly focus is really about reading the systems and designing the conditions and choosing coherence when there are trade-offs, you know? To me, this is reading the system. And choosing coherence when there are trade-offs, like being in a C, moving people out of it, et cetera, accountability, decision-making authority, all of that with an evolving structure. Oh, I just love it. That so brings me to life. Oh, it's so awesome. It's so awesome at the same time as it's like scary. You know, it's just fucking cool to see the system adapt and evolve based on the business. You know, it's such a... It's really, like, I just think of my, you know, the model, the Integrity at Scale model. It's like, yeah, no, this is it. This is exactly what you would expect, is that something grows and the rest of the system adjusts. You know, which is really fucking cool to, I think, be a part of, but also to bear witness to for others. It's, it's really cool. So, okay, so let's do one key takeaway or maybe, like, a, a couple key takeaways. One is, for me, so, so much of using EOS comes back to seat clarity, accountability chart clarity. So many questions that we have get answered just by that. So many future plans. We have, you know, our accountability chart right now versus, yeah, that's gonna be next. Like, we're working towards this next. When we hit this threshold, we're gonna shift and do this. Like, it becomes such a, I don't wanna say a marker and I don't wanna say a milestone, but It's an integral part of any of our plans. And so of all of the things that are EOS-esque For me, one of the core ones is the accountability chart. Bar none, it has to be clean and clear and used and assessed and modified. All the things that you're doing, that has to stay in place. So one is just, again, key takeaways, designing that accountability chart, being very, very intentional. When you do transition either owners or when you start to... Like for example, Brittany, in three months if you're like, "Okay, I'm gonna step in to the integrator seat. Amy's gonna step out," know that there might still be a little bit of overlap. So when Taylor stepped into integrator, it was kind of a six-month transition period, so she's in the seat. We were meeting weekly and really discussing things, and part of that was I wanted to make sure that she knew my thought process, how and why I make decisions, why I do this instead of that, why here instead of there, the timing of stuff, You know, I needed that to be ingrained as much as, well, your responsibility is the onboarding process. Cool. But if she doesn't understand the thought behind it, the intention, you know, if she doesn't understand what it is that I'm trying to do here, then you know, it's useless. It's empty. It's not gonna be robust in the way that I actually want it to, that I want for the practice. So I'm saying as you're transitioning, you and Amy should also be, I would recommend anyway, meeting weekly and doing, like, a lot of same-page stuff as you're going. At some point, that will likely transition. I'll say for same-page meetings, Taylor and I meet once a month and they're like four-hour meetings. So we're not meeting weekly because she's owning integrator, you know, so I don't... There's very few things that we need to meet about that are, like, same-page-esque. And when we meet then we have a list of things, but not a lot of, like, fires to put out. More like, "Hey, let's get on the same page to clear this up or clarify this thing as we're moving forward." So might be weekly for a while, and then, you might transition and start, you know, doing every other week or once a month for, like, a solid chunk of time. And then maybe the final takeaway, I keep digressing a little bit, but there's just so many... I just have more thoughts. I so wish Taylor was here with me, but I also just wanted to get this recorded for you. So, that stinks she's not here, and also I still hope this is helpful. My very final thought is that- Instead of anticipating the meetings changing or, like, what's gonna happen if, trust what you have in place. Because for me, one of the things I just fucking love about EOS is that when you're using it, and again, this is from my own perspective, but I, I think kind of the beauty of it is when you are using it, it's not giving you an answer. It doesn't tell you what to do, but it is designed to catch the problems as they arise. There is nowhere that I can think of that a problem can fall through the cracks, at least not consistently, if components of EOS or the structure of EOS is actually being used. So if, for example, you start these meetings and you realize something is not, something's not working, like there's too much overlap or there's... people aren't speaking up, like something's off, guess what? Like, that's a fucking issues list item. That's a conversation now that we're having. Like, when you notice something, you document, you acknowledge, you voice. It's open and honest. And so even if things are off, it doesn't matter because you're gonna be able to capture the problem and then solve it. Seek to solve it for good. Okay, I think I really am done. For anybody else listening to this Amy and Brittany, I know, I hope anyway, I hope you know that you can always email me with questions that you have, um, duh, if you have them. And also for anybody else, get on my website and submit listener questions. I love this type of... I love this. I hope that it's helpful, but I personally love doing it this way. I wanna answer questions that are relevant for people. So if you have your own, get on the website, which you can find in any of the descriptions where you're listening, and Send me your listener query, your query. And if you're also listening, you're like, "Oh, hot damn, my friend needs to hear this," send it. Send this podcast episode over. Let them hear it. Share it with somebody that you know needs to hear it Additionally, and lastly, you can find related episodes linked below. So if you wanna listen to more VI stuff, reporting stuff, anything with this kind of a lens or angle, then find an episode below. That aside, you do you, boo boo. I'll see you on the next episode. Thanks. Bye.