On Having Intellectual Integrity

Speaker A: Welcome to Connecting to Admired Leadership, where twice a month, we engage with our coaches and clients in conversation around practical leadership wisdom. Designed to be a quick 30 minutes of actionable content and real dialogue. We select a topic to, um, unpack, and our live audience brings questions to our guests and Alex, our AI Leadership coach. Now, let's get into this session and make people and situations better together. Good morning, uh, good afternoon, good evening. Perhaps, uh, depending on where you're logging in live around the world. Uh, ah, hello. Greetings to anybody who might be listening to the recording. You're out on a run, you're mowing the grass, whatever you're doing out there. Uh, thank you so much, uh, for joining. Listening in. Uh, for those of you joining live. Love, uh, that you're here. Love that you're joining live, of course, uh, for these, um, uh, Connecting to Admired Leadership webinars, we have twice a month. Today we are talking about intellectual integrity, uh, and it sounds like an academic concept, uh, off the bat, uh, but if you. As we really dig in, I think you'll realize, Matt, you can correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, it. It isn't necessarily, uh. It's actually one of the most practical and consequential leadership practices that's out there. Uh, one that I have had to learn. Uh, my wife has told me over and over again that this is something that I struggle with. She didn't know the term intellectual property. That. The more I prepared for our webinar today, I realize this is something that my wife has said. You know, you probably ought to lean in, uh, to. To this conversation this week. Uh, most leaders violate it regularly, uh, perhaps in their personal and professional life, probably without even realizing it. Um, it's what we're unpacking today. Uh, and we're doing it with one of the sharpest thinkers I know. Some of you may know Matt. He's been on our webinar before. Um, Matt was also kind enough to actually host in my absence, uh, our last webinar with Diana Hong as well. Uh, so we usually start out and we say, you know, who are you and how are you using AI? I want to give a little disclaimer before I let Matt do that, though. Um, uh, just so you know, Matt, along with a handful of our other colleagues, lead all of our continued AI Conversation at our firm. Uh, both the internal development. They host some internal trainings for our firm every week, uh, every Friday, as we figure out the best ways to utilize AI in our everyday, uh, work. Uh, and. And workflows and uh, then he also handles all of our external communications and programs too. So, uh, many of you may, uh, uh, may read, uh, Confluence, uh, every week. Uh, we have a great short course. Uh, we'll, we'll talk a little bit about today too. Um, but Matt and a handful of others lead all of that. So with that, Matt, who are you and how do you use AI? As somebody who I believe is a just power user, staying on the trends of AI and everything, who are you and how do you use AI?

Speaker B: Uh, so one of those answers is easy. I'm Matt Coyne. I'm a managing director at, uh, cra. Admired leadership. I'm based in Chicago. Uh, for what that's worth, uh, how do I use AI? Um, I use it in all sorts of ways. I would say the biggest one is to get smarter and to make my work better and to make me better. So, uh, we'll talk a little bit more about that as we get into some of these questions. But I'm using it all the time to learn, to even plan what I want to learn, um, but also to pressure test my work to help me make my work better and to make me better as an advisor to the people that, uh, depend on us.

Speaker A: Fantastic. Well said. Uh, so let's dig in. Uh, what's the definition? What is intellectual integrity? Um, what does it look like when a leader has it versus when they don't? And as you answer that question, uh, Alex, if you would drop in the um, field note, uh, that alludes to what we'll be talking about today. So tell us about intellectual integrity. Why should we care about it, Matt?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, uh, a few dimensions to it, I would say. As the field note states, I think pretty early on in it, um, intellectual integrity is really about seeing, seeing the world as things are not as you wish them to be. So that's part of it. There are dimensions of that further that we can break down as we go on. But that's where I would start. Um, but there's this interesting tension in it, which is that, um, it's about having equal comfort and confidence with what you do know as well as what you don't. So, um, if I have intellectual integrity and I don't know something, I am confident and comfortable saying that if I have intellectual integrity and I do know something and I have a strong point of view about something, I am confident and comfortable advancing that position. Um, so. So it's both of those things which can feel like their intention, I think. You know, when you See the app, there's kind of two spectrum. On one end of the spectrum it can certainly show up as arrogance. So arrogance is kind of the opposite of this in some ways. That's one end of the spectrum. So that's, you know, I have no skepticism about my beliefs. I, I, I don't even know if there's anything I don't know and I don't care. So that's one end. The other end of the spectrum, though, you know, maybe a bit more counterintuitive is, is could be indecisiveness or meekness. So I do know things, but I am not confident to put them forward and to put them out there. So both of those things can be an expression of a lack of intellectual integrity from kind of different angles.

Speaker A: So I'd love to know on the call, uh, if you know, work with someone, uh, who speaks with an abundance of confidence to things that you're like, I don't know, that you really know what you're talking about, uh, at times, if you know someone like that, uh, just drop a one, just drop a one in the chat box. Uh, if you want to drop their name, title, where they're from, all those kind of things, you're welcome to do that. No, no, obviously don't, uh, don't do that. But we've definitely got some people on the call that um, uh, that have that. So what are some of the most common ways, Matt, that leaders violate this idea of intellectual integrity? And let me just say when this field note came out, and I read this field note a while back, and it brought, uh, language, uh, and semantics to something that we all deal with, but we've never really necessarily had the language to talk about it or know what it is or define it. Um, so as we dig into this idea of intellectual integrity, what are some of the common ways leaders violate it without realizing? What are some blind spots that people might have?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think an obvious one is, um, either an, an unwillingness or even a subconscious, uh, ignorance of the ability to question your own beliefs. So I mean that's, that's the obvious one is I hold these beliefs, I hold them to be self evident and I will now try to impose them on reality. I think the more subtle one though, and this is one that, I mean if I were to, to really pay attention to this all day long, I'm probably guilty of this several times a day, which is again like conflating the way you want the world to be with the way it actually is. And so Intellectual integrity is about seeing the world, seeing reality on its own terms, um, and deciding what to do about that. Uh, I think what's tricky here is that if our definition of leadership is about making people in situations better, that implies change. Better means better than things are now. And so we need to have a point of view on what that end state looks like. Having that point of view on a future state is vision. So, so we have a vision for how we want things to be. Figuring out how to get there is our strategy, and how we execute that strategy is our tactics. Our strategy and our tactics need to be grounded in the way things are today, not in how we wish them to be. The vision is how we wish them to be. The strategy and the tactics are about how we make that a reality. And in order for that to work, they need to be grounded in the way things are now. Otherwise, our strategy is just to hope that the world decides to conform itself to how we want it to be. Um, so I think conflating the way we want things to be with the way things are is probably the most subtle but probably the most common way it shows up.

Speaker A: So this isn't a question that we talked about ahead of time, but it brings to my mind, I think a lot of leaders feel that tension of being, being the leader. I need to have the answers, and I need. I, I really need to speak with confidence in where, in where we're going and what we're going, regardless of whether or not I've got the facts to back it up. People need that passion and enthusiasm and inspiration and that kind of stuff. Uh, what would we say to that leader who, who comes back and says, yeah, I know, I, I know I'm not necessarily. I know I'm kind of speaking out of turn or based on facts, but I'm, I'm, I'm driving this thing forward. Uh, coach a leader to figure out what you, what you just said is that balance between, um, uh, the, the, the truth and the facts and living in reality and the need to push people and have the answers and not, not, not say, I don't know. Right. That's where, that's where a lot of leaders have an issue.

Speaker B: Yeah. Well, I mean, part of it is, is having the judgment to, to decide when it is appropriate to say, I don't know. Um, but I think, I mean, the reality is we're never operating with perfect information like there, there's almost never going to be a case where we have every single data point that we would want. But as A leader or just as a person living in the world, like, we need to act. Um, and so the question becomes, you know, how can we do that credibly in a way that brings others along with us? Um, I would say it's about having confidence in the facts as you understand them, in your interpretation of them and the rationale by which you're making the decision, um, but also to express the vision. So one phrase we will often use is we want you to be optimistic about the future. So again, getting back to that vision piece, the way we want things to be, being optimistic about that, but we want you to be realistic about what it's going to take to get there. And so you can do that in a very confident way that does not that it's not overconfident or arrogant. And, you know, I don't know if this is paradoxical or not, but I think what we see is that the more leaders do it that way, it actually bolsters their credibility, um, in a way that if they're over expressing confidence just will. Will diminish their credibility. Um, and, and framing it that way also gives you the ability to adjust course when you need to, setting the expectation up front that this is how we are going to act now because of the circumstances and based on what we know, we're. We reserve the right to, to get smarter, to change course if we need to. And then you do that later. And people are like, yep, this is, this is what we said we were going to do. I feel good about this change of course as opposed to if you had, you know, set out with supreme confidence. This is the exact perfect way. If you change course, then it undermines the entire, not just the strategy, but the vision itself.

Speaker A: I love that. And at times you can be a leader who says, this is what we know, this is what we don't know. And you can still be confident in the decision based on that. If it's time to make the decision, you can still do. But if you give that disclaimer, here's what we know, here's what we don't know, it actually brings confidence, uh, across the board, uh, rather than the others. So we got some great, uh, questions ahead of time for this particular webinar. Uh, so let's dive into some of those. This one I really love, uh, as the integrator leading weekly leadership meetings, uh, what challenge questions can I ask when an issue is presented to help the team set aside personal feelings or politics, seek the root cause and listen to the evidence before reacting or Proposing solutions. Now I know that's a long question there, um, but what will we say to that? I think it's a great one and one we all struggle with.

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think part of the answer is in the question itself, which is what challenge questions should I ask? I think our advice, piece of advice, number one would be ask the questions. Um, so we're starting off in a good spot there. Um, and honestly I would say stay in the question, stay in the problem longer than probably feels comfortable, but you know, human nature, we want to jump to solutions. Um, people have a well founded sense of urgency to, you know, get things done and move forward. Um, but as a leader, it's often our job to not let us get there too quickly. We need to make sure we're defining the problem appropriately before we uh, decide on what the solution is going to be. So that would be the main thing is I would say stay there, stay there for probably longer than you feel is comfortable. Just a little bit. Um, in terms of the questions itself, I mean there, there are countless good questions you can ask here, but I think the key is to, to keep them on the level of facts. So, so we're, we're not, you know, we're exploring the facts of the situation, we're looking at data from different angles. We're challenging assumptions, we're surfacing assumptions is a really powerful one. So I mean if there were maybe one question and if you ask this in every meeting, it's going to get annoying. But well timed is like, all right, like let's stop for a second, let's put on the table every assumption that was implicit in everything we just talked about. So you're surfacing the assumptions and then you're challenging the assumptions. So I think there are a lot of ways you can come at it, but you keep it at that level of what are the facts as they are right now. Um, the last thing I would add here is as the leader, you want to wait for as long as you can before inserting your own point of view. Because the second you do, um, it constrains the definition of, of the problem and the solution. Like people are going to say, okay, so you know, Wes just said, this is the problem. I guess this is the problem. If this is the problem, there's a finite number of solutions we can have. So you've con, you've constrained the entire solution set just by inserting your point of view. So keeping your role focused on the questions, keeping the questions as neutral as you can so that you're not accidentally or intentionally inserting your point of view through the questions. Like, that's not really a question. That's you sharing your point of view by other means. So those would be the two things. You know, ask the questions, keep them focused on the facts, and withhold inserting your own point of view until you feel that the group has actually expressed theirs.

Speaker A: Yeah, and I love what you said about staying in the question. That's something we really train leaders on. And it's not, it's not natural, you know, to. Especially because there's some awkwardness in that. But in that. Awkwardness in that, in that tension of staying in the question is often where, where uh, you really get to the root of a lot of things. So I love it when our current clients, uh, jump on these and, and give questions because a lot of times they, those. Our current clients know us well and know that we love very practical questions. And uh, so this one came in from one of our current clients is really good. Um, uh, how do you deal with a confrontational employee during a team meeting where all eyes are on you? How does intellectual integrity guide your response in that moment? I mean, that's a, we can all think of a moment, uh, when we've been in that kind of a situation. But how do you deal with the confrontational employee in this circumstance?

Speaker B: Yeah, so there, there are a lot of, uh, there's a lot of context that probably matters to this particular situation, which we don't have. But a couple things I would point out. First is that if this is a recurring thing, if this same employee is confronting over and over again in meetings, I would guess that the confrontation is not actually about the information that you guys are discussing the conference. The confrontation may be about the relationship. So we have a field note about that. Well, that's a separate conversation for a separate time. So let's now assume that the confrontation actually is about, you know, the problem, the solution, etc. Not, not that person. You know, basically saying, I actually have a problem with you and I'm going to express it by talking about our project or whatever. Um, so again, not to repetitive here, but I think when you do engage, it's about keeping it at the level of the facts. So, so we're, we're engaging with the person's confrontation through the lens of like, what are they actually saying? Like what are, what are the claims they're making, what's the evidence they're bringing? What's the evidence I bring? And, and, and it's not A personal debate. It's, it's a. Let's put the facts on the table, let's interrogate them to understand, like, the goal with intellectual integrity is to, like, let us both understand reality better. And so engaging in the conversation in a way that, that leads to. That I think is the most important thing. And related to that is like, you certainly don't want to try to win the argument. Like, that's, that's kind of counter to the, the whole idea of intellectual intent.

Speaker A: Hang on, real, Hang on real quick. I'm gonna try to get my wife to log in so she can, she can hear that one more time or cinder.

Speaker B: I mean, when, when, when you, when you shift gears to like, I am going to win this argument with this person, that's really not, that's about winning. And that. Another relational thing. Um, so in a conversation where both parties are engaging with true intellectual integrity, there really isn't a winner or a loser. Um, there is the joint commitment to understanding reality better. So again, there may be bigger relational things which would require kind of a separate line of thought. But to the extent that you do engage, I would keep it to the facts of the situation. Um, and certainly don't try to beat that person in the argument in front of, you know, their peers. That's not, that's not what this is about.

Speaker A: That's good. Yeah. Uh, and I see Alex was able to find, uh, that field note that you just alluded to as well. So it's in the chat box if anybody wants to grab that kind of research, that piece. And again, those of you who have access to Alex, uh, certainly that's, that's the place to carry any piece of this conversation, uh, forward, uh, for yourself. Um, so earlier in the conversation, Matt, you mentioned two different types of people. Maybe in a meeting you've got the people who are almost speaking out of. And they're speaking with such confidence, but they have very little fact to back that up. So they don't have, they don't have an opinion that's been necessarily even considered. They don't have an opinion that's based on solid data that they're just speaking with incredible confidence and out of turn, maybe in that way. And then the other, on the other side of the spectrum, you've got people who do have good data associated. You have people who do have a real considered, processed opinion, but they don't speak up. Uh, so the question that came in is how do you create that safe place, uh, for. For that particular individual to ensure they're speaking up. How does a leader create the environment and the circumstance? So you're getting all of those really healthy, good opinions at the table.

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think for the, for the person who's unwilling to. Or I shouldn't say unwilling. The person who, whether due to just their natural tendencies or whatever, is. Is less vocal. And maybe, I mean, we all know these people and they come out of the meeting and they say afterwards, like, I have a really good idea about this, but I didn't want to share it. It's like, well, the whole point was for you to do that. But, um, I think as the leader, you, you know, and I wouldn't do this in front of the group. Maybe it's an individual thing. You set the expectation that, like, hey, you're. You're on this team for a reason. We deeply appreciate and need your point of view. I've noticed that you don't seem willing to share it. I need you to do that. I mean, I had a professor say that to me in college, and it kind of changed everything. She was like, I just, I need you to talk more like, like, like you're just sitting there when you do talk, like, it adds to the conversation. I need you to do that. And so that you know that to the extent that you have people on your team who are, hold. Who you know are holding back, um, having the, the individual conversation to set the expectation. But then when it happens, you have to protect them. And you, you have to, you have to. The way to cultivate that level of safety in the whole group is to make sure everyone feels safer, um, with you in the room than if you're not in the room. And so if someone does something that, that you can tell, you know, maybe they misspoke, you do something to, to protect them and to allow them to save face. But if you're going to encourage people to put it all out there, um, you need to be ready to help when, you know, mistakes or missteps happen, because they will. And if you don't come in to help that situation feel less threatening or whatever, they're never going to do it again. And so it's kind of two jobs. One is you set the expectation, and two is you make people feel safe by being a part of that conversation, however you can. Uh, and you have to be very observant and ready to be able to do that.

Speaker A: That's so good. Early, uh, on in my career, I was just reminded of this, but early on in my career, I was in a meeting um, and it was a group of higher level leaders that typically I was not in those meetings, but for whatever reason I had been invited into that particular meeting. And after, after the meeting was over, uh, there was this little conversation happening. Um, and I saw the leader, the most senior leader, who was kind of the person looked to during that meeting. He happened to walk by and hear one of those kind of after meeting conversations where a person hadn't spoken up in the actual meeting. And he immediately started hollering in the hallway, everybody back in the conference room, to make sure that opinion was, was heard. Again, I don't know if that's the correct way to deal with it or not, but, but that, that level of leader who wants, who really desires to have those opinions, all of those strong opinions. Um, and I found that leader to be one who kind of walks the halls after the meeting to see, you know, what else is out there to ensure we're getting everybody's perspectives at the table.

Speaker B: Yeah. And I mean the, there's a blunt way of expressing this to someone and there are more delicate ways, but like the message is ultimately like you are doing us as a team a disservice if you are not sharing what, what you believe and what you know. Um, there's a soft way of delivering that message. There's a hard way. Obviously how you deliver it is situational. But, um, people need to understand that. And uh, you know, good leaders aren't going to let that slide for too long.

Speaker A: Yeah. And one of the first ways to create that safe space is the leader has intellectual integrity, leads with that. So there, there's just a level of trust that happens there across the board. All right. We'd be reminisce not to dig into a little bit of AI with having you on the call today. So one. And one of the questions that came in was, uh, of course from one of our Confluence readers. Uh, uh, given your experience with Confluence, what are your thoughts on navigating intellectual integrity while using AI tools to help us communicate and work with others? Especially when AI use is not viewed favorably by all in the organization. And as you collect your thoughts on that, I think it also is a great time. Uh, I don't know if Alex can just kind of put in the AI short course that we have coming up that you and a handful of other colleagues lead. We uh, can put that in the chat box for everybody too. Uh, so given your, uh, you know, your experience with Confluence, how are you, how do we navigate intellectual integrity in, uh, the world of A.I.

Speaker B: yeah, um, I hesitate to make this claim I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it. Uh, and I don't. I do not want to suggest that intellectual integrity is a fixed trait. I think it's something we can all work to get better on. That said, I think I'm pretty confident in making the claim that the way someone uses AI is a pretty good reflection of their level of intellectual integrity. Um, and so if you're using AI to bolster, to just make an argument that you have weak, um, to just kind of tell you what you want to hear and make it stronger, or if you're using it to just outsource your thinking and not have a point of view at all, like those are low intellectual integrity behaviors. Um, so. So I do think there's just like, that relationship is an interesting one to me in terms of how I think about it. I mean, I, I think the. If you want to lean into intellectual integrity, dial it up or whatever, these are amazing tools to do it. I mean, what better way to. If part of intellectual integrity is having skepticism about your own beliefs, what better way. What better tool to pressure test them? It's available to us all the time. Um, so I'm constantly using AI to poke holes in my thinking. I want my thinking to be strong and battle tested. Um, I don't want to shy away from questioning my own beliefs. And I use AI for that all the time. So that would be kind of the biggest thing, is that if you want to use this to bolster intellectual integrity or to use it in a way that's consistent with intellectual integrity, you can do it all day long and it'll, it'll sharpen your thinking. The other thing, and I was reading something earlier this week about someone, Someone saying essentially that in his, in his view, you actually want AI to increase your cognitive load rather than decrease it. I think I agree with that. And the, the way I think about it is, like, it, you want to actually be thinking harder when you're using AI. If, if you're not thinking harder than you would be without using AI, or at least as hard as you'd be thinking without AI, something is happening that's probably not good. Like, like you're then kind of becoming a proxy for the AI's thoughts and you're just channeling those through you, which is not what we want. So, so I, I encourage people not to think about AI as a way to offload your thinking. I think about it as a way to, to deepen your thinking. To sharpen your thinking, to push your thinking further, all of those things. And it's an amazing tool for that when you choose to use it that way.

Speaker A: So speak to, uh. I really love how you articulated that. Uh, and so I wrote down a little phrase as you were talking. So speak, speak to this whether you agree, disagree, or if it's a good, uh, kind of litmus test, uh, in how we're using AI. Um, the strongest leaders in the world use AI to poke holes in their thinking rather than allow it to do the thinking for them. Would you agree with that? Disagree?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't have. I don't think anyone has the data on whether that's true or not, but I would guess right. I would feel very confident that it is because otherwise, like, what are you doing? Like, you know, if, if you're, you just become this empty proxy for the AI, which at a certain point, like, is not sustainable. So, yeah, I would think that the, the best leaders are using AI to do exactly what you just said, to strengthen their thinking rather than replace it.

Speaker A: So I did that in a couple ways I want everybody to see. So as far as the concept of intellectual integrity, there truly is, uh, maybe no one better. Maybe there is somebody better. Again, I don't have the data on that necessarily than Matt. So I said that at the end. I did not give that statement to Matt ahead of time or anything like that. But I just want to address how you heard Matt speak to that, um, he, he spoke with confidence while also giving the disclaimer of saying, I don't know that there's any data on that. But, but it sounds right. And it sounds right. I mean, that's a level of a simplicity of how I always know you to respond. Matt. You can respond with both a confidence, uh, and experience, a considered, um, perspective on something. But at the same time you're saying, here's what we don't know about that that needs to be considered at the same time in such an easy response. And I knew you would, you would respond in that way. I'm glad you did. Obviously I wouldn't have said anything otherwise. But.

Speaker B: But that, but yeah, good example that like, if we apply this, this whole frame to AI writ large, having intellectual integrity in terms of how you think about AI, period, I think is going to be really important in these next few years. Um, if, I mean, we've updated our position as things have evolved, like nobody knows what's coming, nobody knows what's going to happen next, nobody you know, there are some things that I feel strongly right now are, are going to be bad and some things that are going to be good, but I don't know. And so we're all going to have to see what actually happens and be fluid and be honest in reconciling our points of views with those facts to navigate this. I mean, that's true generally, but I think it's particularly true with this technology, which is such an unknown in terms of the impact it's going to have on society, on organizations, on us as individuals. If we're going into that with a fixed point of view right now, um, I don't think we're going to be in a very good position a couple years from now.

Speaker A: That's good. Uh, we'll go another one or two minutes here. But, um, so one thing that uh, we had AI do that I think is a great use of AI. We actually had AI, Claude, uh, and Alex skim through all of our upcoming events throughout the rest of the year. So we've got some of these webinars, some more of these webinars, but we've also got some on location events where we're taking these types of conversations, extending them and doing them in person for senior leaders really all over the U.S. uh, that begins next month. We'll be in Atlanta, uh, Nashville and Tampa. Um, and we had uh, Alex and Claude put together a one pager on all of that. So we're going to drop that to everybody right now. So you can see that uh, the links are live and you can see everything we have coming up to the rest of the year. All of those, ah, complimentary. So, you know, great thing to circulate and invite others as well. Um, I'm going to uh, kind of read directly from the field note and then Matt give you any kind of final remarks that you might have and spe to this. But I wanted to just uh, take a quick note at the end to really make sure we define intellectual integrity again, because, because I would agree that's going to be very. It's going to become even more important as AI becomes more and more prevalent. But this uh, portion of the field note says intellectual integrity requires leaders to be comfortable not knowing. And they are quick to say they don't know when they don't, but they are exceedingly comfortable with what they do know and value. They consistently apply those values to situation, challenges and opportunities. And I think that's a great recap, uh, to our conversation today. Any final uh, advice, encouragement, best, uh, practices or that, uh, you want to share, uh, with our, with our growing community here. Matt.

Speaker B: Uh, I mean, I guess the one piece of advice I would give to kind of a practical thing you can do, and there's field note about this, which I'm going to drop in in a second, is as you're, you know, navigating a situation, a project, a relationship, whatever, to, to ask yourself the question, um, am I, am I seeing things as they really are or as I want them to be? The questions we ask ourselves about how we are processing reality can be really powerful. This field note that I'm going to drop in right now is about the questions we ask ourselves. Um, having a practice of kind of, you know, asking yourself these reflective questions I think will go a long way toward, um, all of us just reminding ourselves like, you know, am I, am I looking at the facts or am I looking at my projection of how I want reality to be? Um, and we need to be looking at the facts in order to take the action. We need to create the reality we want down the road. But we're not going to hope it into existence. And to bring it into existence, we need to reckon with reality. So that's where I would leave it. Those, you know, simple questions can be really powerful.

Speaker A: That's awesome. Uh, Matt, as always, appreciate, uh, all you do for, uh, both internally and then externally with our clients. Appreciate your friendship, uh, your advice, your expert peace, uh, your desire to improve, uh, your desire to get better. Yeah. And, uh, and deep down, you know, one of the things I love so much about you is your, your deep, deep commitment to excellence, uh, and pursuing excellence in everything that you do. So thank you so much for your time today. Um, we will leave the chat box open here for another, uh, two or three minutes if there's any of those links that you still want to grab at. Um, and then thanks, uh, everybody for joining those of you listening to the recording. And we will see you in the next one. Thanks everybody.

Speaker B: Thanks so much, Wes. Always fun to be with you.

Speaker A: Cheers. Bye.