Phil Le-Brun: The Octopus Organization

Speaker A: Were missing out, Particularly in the knowledge economy. We're missing out on so much potential. And then you layer on top of that that one study says a manager only understands no more than 40% of what his or her people do. So that manager can't even make a good decision because they don't really understand how the job gets done. We're actually, um, putting organizations in a place where, uh, decisions, um, become really, really slow for the wrong reason. Foreign

Speaker B: welcome to Franklin Covey's On Leadership. I'm your host, Jennifer Colosimo. On Leadership brings practical insight through conversations with senior leaders and seasoned practitioners focused on the human side of strategy and transformation. Today's guest has seen firsthand what organizational transformation truly requires and at a scale most of us can't imagine. Phil Le Brun has spent his career in the space of technology and human change, modernizing operations across 38,000 McDonald's restaurants in 120 countries, then advising Fortune 500 executives at Amazon Web Services on what it actually takes to move large organizations forward. His new book, the Octopus Organization, published by Harvard Business Review Press, makes the case for a fundamentally different leadership model, one built for complexity, not control. Phil, thank you for joining us on leadership.

Speaker A: Thank you for having me, Jen.

Speaker B: Um, I'm wanting to dive right in and, uh, start with the fact that at Franklin Covey, all of our clients, when they talk about capabilities their people need, they talk about innovation, agility, growth, mindset, having an owner's mentality, and put that in one box. And recently on LinkedIn, you wrote, the silent killer of good organizations isn't bad people. It's good people trapped in a quagmire of bad rules and oversight. So while, of course, there's probably some capability in there, you've got a systemic, broad thesis. Would you overview that for us and give us a broad view of the Octopus Organization, a guide to thriving in a world of continuous transformation?

Speaker A: Absolutely. This book came from years of making mistakes. Both myself and my co author, Jana Werner, uh, and more recently, we're both executives in residence at, uh, Amazon Web Services. We deal with about 1500 customers a year at an executive level of all sorts of businesses and public sectors. And we see the same pattern of mistakes organizations make and we've made to get to all of those buzzwords. You said agility, resilience, adaptability, innovation, transformation. And one of our observations is we apply old ways of working. Uh, we take old ways of working, apply old ways of thinking, and expect something spectacularly new to come out of that. So we use two Metaphors. One is the Tin man, if you remember wizard of Oz, this um, heartless, creaking, uh, robot that you could take one arm off and plug another arm in. That's how we treat organizations as if they're mechanical, very 19th century. We measure the individual, we treat individuals as if they're replaceable. Um, we look at compliance and minimizing variance and predictability, which was great in the 19th century factory, but much of what we do isn't like that today. We treat organizations as if they're complicated. You could take the wheel off a bicycle and plug another one in. You can unplug the IT department, plug another one in. Ah, and the reality is organizations are complex. You change a reward system or the leader and it has a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, um, order impact. And there's a way of dealing with complex systems. And you don't try and plan every change. You actually apply a very adaptive mindset. So you try something, see what happens. You learn from it. Or maybe it works and you learn from it. Ah, and use it broader across the organization. But it's this idea of continuous transformation as opposed to these one time soul destroying five year transformations which 70 to 90% of them don't see the anticipated results and even the ones that do are soul destroying. And you get to the end of your transformation project and you stop and guess what happens. You stop and you start to go backwards again. So we think there's a much more humane way of achieving everything you said without subjecting an organization to so much stress.

Speaker B: And so let's talk about the octopus metaphor. Just a few pieces of it because it carries throughout the book. But some of the things, how you're tying this to an octopus as an organism.

Speaker A: Yeah, the um, typical organization is full of human beings. It's a biological organization more than a mechanical one. We picked the octopus for many reasons. Some of the reasons are completely irrelevant. Like an octopus can play a piano and has a sense of humor. Now it probably doesn't really affect an organization much, but when you actually look at some of the things that do. An octopus hasn't changed its physical structure for about 250 million years. And it survived, it's survived and thrived. Well, an organization changes its structure every few years. Um, what particularly struck us were two attributes of the octopus. One is its innate learning ability. It grows up without parents. It has to learn, um, to survive through its own adaptability and resilience by um, learning about the environment around it. It doesn't have a hard shell to Protect it. It relies on its ability to react at speed to new stimulus. The second attribute which is really relevant to organizations is 2/3 of an octopus's neurons are in its arms. So yes, there's a central brain, but much of the actual day to day work, for one of the better phrase, um, that sensing that adaptability, the figuring out what to do next is actually centralized. So as opposed to many of the organizations we've all worked in, where decisions, uh, are all channeled up to the central headquarters, the octopus is central brain and then takes forever to process with a lot of context missing and then finally flows down the organization. An octopus can adapt very, very quickly. But all of those arms are working in concept because there's an overarching mission it's undertaken.

Speaker B: It's clear, um, the, and I love that I'm going to reemphasize it. Two thirds of an octopus neurons reside in its arms. So let me share just a couple of stats from our research arm, the Franklin Covey Institute, and tell me how this fits in. Maybe it's in your anti patterns, maybe it's in your pillars, but one of the data, um, points is 36% of employees hesitate to make decisions without a manager's approval. This sounds exactly like what you're talking about. So tell me what's, how do we overcome that? What pattern does that touch into that makes us so, um, old in acting like a 19th century organization?

Speaker A: It's a depressing stat, isn't it? You hire all these brilliant people, which I assume they're brilliant because you've hired them. Um, and then we put 42 levels of management on top of them to tell them how to do the job we hired them to do. Uh, I guess if we step back, when we wrote the book, we sat down and said, look, what are all of those things that prevent an organization transforming, uh, into a better version of itself? And we found about 300 dysfunctions. We boiled those up into 36 um, anti patterns. And an anti pattern is a formulaic conditioned response to a situation. For instance, new CEO comes into a multinational business and says we're going to centralize everything because centralization is efficient and, and efficient is good. And yet they've just created a massive bottleneck in their own organization. And then those 36 anti patterns, we've broken into three themes, which ironically we're both technologists, but none of this has much to do with technology. It's just more important in the era of AI. And those themes were clarity. Do I know what good looks like the problems to solve, how I'm doing as an individual. Ownership, this idea of individuals having agency or wanting to do more than just a job description and then curiosity, that innately human characteristic where we want to explore the world around us. And we've seen the same Jan. Uh, I don't have a figure, but we've seen this all over the place. Gallup looked at this and talked about how many, uh, employees are demotivated at work. Um, even managers, the majority of managers don't want to be managers, except we force them into that position. So you end up in this situation. In ownership where we talk about things like empowerment in businesses, you're empowered to make this decision. And there's an implied undertone there which is just don't screw up. Oh, and by the way, when you make that decision, check uh, in with me. Oh, and by the way, when you make that decision, I already know how I want this to be done. So often this is the way it's communicated. And even the word empowerment's wrong. It says, I'm giving you some power, but I can take it away if I want to as well. So there's that piece from a leader's behavior where they're trying to control, not for nefarious reasons most often, but they think that's the best way to manage risk or minimize risk. And then there's the employee themselves who has to accept ownership. And there's many reasons they may not want to accept ownership. They're not clear on what they're taking ownership of. Um, maybe they're in an organization where the leader's talking about becoming a platform based, AI enabled, customer obsessed organization. It's just, I don't even know what that means. I don't know what I'm actually.

Speaker B: What are those words?

Speaker A: Yeah, it's exactly. But, but you've seen these emission statements all over the world. Um, they, they don't mean anything. They don't touch your heart and brain. Um, employees are also fearful that they'll be penalized if they make a mistake. There's also no upside often to taking ownership. We, um, Yana had this experience talking to an executive recently for half an hour where the executive said my people don't want ownership. And the more she dug into it, the more it became clear there was absolutely no upside in taking that ownership, only downside, only the risk of penalization. So there's many, many reasons. Psychological safety is another one where people don't feel safe to express a view. Um, but it's sad because we're missing out, particularly in the knowledge economy. We're missing out on so much potential. And then you layer on top of that that one study says a manager only understands no more than 40% of what his or her people do. So that manager can't even make a good decision because they don't really understand how the job gets done. We're actually um, putting organizations in a place where um, decisions become really, really slow for the wrong reason.

Speaker B: Well, I'm sure all of the listeners have had the experience you're noting. Excuse me, where, um, am I really clear when I say it's going to be a customer centric AI platform? Do I know what that is? Do I know what my piece of it is and how is there upside in it? This all sounds like habits that actually seem reasonable to reduce risk. So let's talk about specifics. If you're a leader and you would like to put clarity, ownership and curiosity into place and overcome some of these habits that seem reasonable to reduce risk, how do you advise whether at Amazon or your other clients. We were talking about a conference you were recently at. Recently at, uh, how do you balance or create the conditions for risk to be acceptable to that organization but then letting the decision making out into the arms where there's more neurons?

Speaker A: Well firstly we reframe risk. Risk used to be years ago seen as uh, something that produced opportunity. Now it's often talked about purely in negative terms. And the irony is an environment which is volatile and predictable because of technology, geopolitical situation, supply chain issues, where the complexity, um, the only way of dealing with complexity is by making decisions fast and learning. So the irony is in most organizations decisions take way too long. Something a, uh, low risk decision that could have been made in half an hour now goes through 15 layers of bureaucracy. The decision isn't any better. In fact, it's probably watered down by people who don't understand the context. You just disempowered the employee at the front line who knows what the problem is by taking the decision away from him or, huh, her. So firstly reframing what risk is and the fact that most organizations, because they are so slow, have actually increased the level of risk. Particularly we see with uh, artificial intelligence, the ability to drive down the cost of execution to near zero is real. And that never used to be the case. And yet the reality is our own structures are holding us back from doing that. So what we advise leaders is firstly be a bit reflective, um, get some feedback from people you trust and people who are open with you, often it's your own behaviors which are holding people back. The leader who says, hey, everyone's got autonomy, you go and experiment. But the first person who experiments gets berated by the same leader in a town hall. So that shadow of a leader is critical. And then the way we've structured the book is more as a choose your own adventure. There isn't a book out there that can, uh, say if you do these three things, your company will be great. This is about.

Speaker B: That would be amazing. I don't know that it exists. I mean, you and I should work on one, but we don't. There is no perfect answer to your point. So you've structured it and choose your own adventure. Tell us more.

Speaker A: So in each anti pattern we describe, uh, what a tin man organization looks like, what a traditional organization looks like, what more of an octopus organization looks like. But then applying systems thinking, we've given a few levers you can apply, um, things you can try very simply to learn about what works and what doesn't work in your organization. For instance, uh, most organizations have no idea how value is really created from end to end. If you understand that, you can start to chip away at those dependencies, those things where I could make a decision, but now I have to go and refer to 50 other people to get all of the pieces I need to actually deliver the value I want to deliver. So, uh, what we find is leaders often take the book, they start reading anti patterns out to their team and they watch for behavior, eyes rolling, laughter, shoulders growing heavy, because their teams know where the issues are and often they know, uh, what the solutions are. So some of this is, as one chief transformation officer of a mining company told us, this is about lighting a thousand fires. It's not about a leadership team sitting down and coming up with a plan, uh, a detailed plan. It's really about having each one of your people, each one of your teams think there's a better way I can actually do my job tomorrow and the day after. It's why in Amazon we call the day one culture. This idea that however well you're doing today, there's always a better way, um, tomorrow, which you can go and experiment with. And all of those changes are cumulative over time rather than this idea that a single transformation is going to deliver a significant uplift in productivity.

Speaker B: Beautiful theory. So would love to hear. And you can choose any anti pattern, you can choose any industry, but just a small tactical success where they lit a fire and it's making some difference. They're seeing it move toward a more nimble culture.

Speaker A: I'll give you, um, I'll give you a personal example. I spent 31 years at McDonald's Corporation. Uh, it's a massive company, one of the world's biggest companies, like 2.2 million employees when you look at the franchisees, uh, and such like. And um, we had a CEO who at the start of one year said, in this year we're going to have 20,000 restaurants on e commerce mobile order and pay 8,000 restaurants on home delivery. And then thousands of restaurants, uh, with a new way of taking orders, the whole service system in a restaurant. This was in a company that used to take 10 years to make a decision and probably 10 years to actually implement the decision because it was federated, it was franchised. And um, to achieve those goals you have to, it's not good enough just to work harder. You have to fundamentally change your mindset when you're trying to do a 10x goal. And what we did for our home delivery project, for instance, is we assembled some of our top talent from across the organization. About 12 people, uh, in Amazon. We call it a two pizza team. A team that's no larger than could be fed on two American sized pizzas. We gave them the mission, we explained the why, which often in businesses we don't. Why is home delivery important for the business?

Speaker B: Why are we doing it?

Speaker A: Exactly. And then the what? Well, by the end of this year we want 8,000 restaurants on home delivery. Then we let them get on with it. We took away all of their other work, uh, we gave them a room, a space to work in. These were people who hadn't necessarily worked together before because often we like to work in our silos, not across the organization. Three and a half months later, we'd achieved the mission, um, because as humans we're not very good at multitasking. Those people felt ownership because they hadn't been told how, but they also had a big why. It was something that was going to be career defining in one of the world's biggest companies doing something like that, which ended up adding billions of dollars to McDonald' and it didn't take. There's lots of little changes that had to happen, um, such as how did they get feedback, feedback from each other, not just their bosses who weren't in the room. How the goals were set. Our roles as leaders weren't to tell them how to do the job. It was actually to get rid of all of those barriers to them being successful. More of a servant leader approach. So something as simple as that can have a profound, uh, implication for an organization.

Speaker B: Before we jump back in, I'd like to share a resource from Franklin Covey. One thing I've learned from these conversations is that people can handle a lot of change when they understand where they're going and why it matters. The challenge for leaders is creating that clarity when everything around them seems to be shifting. That's exactly what Franklin Covey's guide, too much disruption, too little leadership is about. It offers practical ways to lead through uncertainty, help teams stay focused on what matters most, and build trust during times of rapid change. You'll find a free copy linked in the show notes. Now let's get back to the conversation. So the example, and obviously you're working with Amazon, you're working with multiple clients and McDonald's is a good example. I'm curious, is this different based on size of the organization? I mean, I'll tell you what I was thinking. Um, what about budget? I'm sure there were guidelines, right? Um, and of course you can see my old school thinking here, where risk is opportunity, but there's also risk, right? Don't take us all the way down. What about the customer? Right, the customer metrics, were there, is there a guideline in place or is it done differently in different sized organizations?

Speaker A: Well, I think the irony is large or there's often this perception. A large organization needs a large budget to achieve anything and often that large budget is associated. So there's a whole bureaucracy to feed. Um, the reality is, uh, instead of coming up with a multi year, multi million dollar project plan which you go and implement and which never works, we all know these plans never, ever survive contact with the customer. Um, the idea in any organization is how do I get something into the hands of the customer really quickly to figure out whether I even made the right decision? If I made the right decision, how do I get the next iteration into the hands of the customer to see if it's going in the right direction? And then as a leader, am, um, I willing to change my mind? And that's often the biggest barrier is as leaders we make a statement about direction and we refuse to change our mind because, uh, failure is shameful. We don't want to say we failed or made, um, the wrong decision. So we have a whole set of leadership principles in Amazon that helps guide that. But the other thing about Amazon is, uh, we try and run as the world's biggest startup. So what I described about these two pizza teams, that's how pretty much the entire organization Structured so it isn't a multi thousand people organization trying to deliver an initiative. Obviously the really large ones, you have lots and lots of two pizza teams. But um, in many ways a small and medium sized business is in a much better position to do this because they aren't bogged down by a lot of people whose jobs are to protect process, to put plans together and the such. Like so much of this comes down to how do you get a team to focus on something that's really important? Obviously there's a question, how do you know it's important, getting focused on what the customer wants and then how do you learn quickly? So it can be lower cost, it can be lower risk, it can be faster and it can be more impactful. It's not like the old days of project management where you'd say, hey, do you want it on time, um, on budget or um, do you want all the functionality in there? Pick one, maybe two. You can actually do a lot of this simultaneously now, particularly with the barriers to technology being so low.

Speaker B: One of the things. Well, first, before we go into AI and data, which is one thing I want to explore before I uh, let you go, I'm sure people are curious. How do you get chosen for one of the two pizza teams in any organization? It doesn't have to be Amazon. But what kind of capabilities as an advisor are you looking for beyond functional expertise?

Speaker A: Yeah, it's actually, it's a really interesting question in terms of hiring, uh, because you are looking for things beyond, you know, are you a brilliant data scientist? Um, when we interview in Amazon, we actually look at our leadership principles, 16 of them, and we interview against that. Because the job I may hire you for today, Jen, is maybe a job I don't need to be done in three years time. But you're still here. I don't want to create my own HR problem. So if I'm hiring against, Are you customer assessed? Are you frugal with time? Do you have a bias for action? It's much easier then to figure out how do we use your capabilities in a job which uh, may not even exist today. And that helps. With the two pizza teams, you're looking for people who can be team players. You're not looking for what we call the brilliant jerk. And you know they're brilliant because they tell you, um, but they're the people who've probably been around a long time and they're the first ones to say when someone else has an idea, it's never going to work. We tried it 20 years ago. And they're the first ones to say, well, all you guys and girls, you don't know what you talk about. I know the answer. They, we know from studies they destroy twice as much value as bringing in an 18 player. A really good team player. We know it from sports. An average group of folks who bond and play well together will outperform a set of brilliant jerks on it, on a team. So a lot of this is about picking people, um, who can help create psychological safety, who are willing to debate the task at hand, not try and protect their ego. Um, and this is really important. So you want this, uh, really intense debate. You want a lot of laughter because people are having fun, because this should be fun. Work should be fun, and you should be able to do important things. Just like you go home and do a hobby and you have fun, but you deliver something of consequence to yourself. But to do that, they have to really want to solve problems. Problems. So people who come in, we, we call our employees, for instance, builders. That doesn't mean technically technical builders, necessarily, but we want people who come in and want to invent and reinvent customer experiences. They, they're curious, they want to learn. So a lot of those characteristics are even more important today than they were even 10, 20 years ago.

Speaker B: I. Well, maybe what it will do is eventually people will recognize that you can have your brilliance and confidence in your brilliance and not be a jerk.

Speaker A: Uh, right. 100%. I mean, no one knows everything. Any leader who believes they don't have to ask questions because they know the answers, they. They're out of a job. I mean, Indra Newey, who's a board member at Amazon, but also the former CEO of PepsiCo, um, she was brilliant to talk to because she boiled this down to two things she looks for in leadership. The ability to storytell. Being able to tell the big story about where are we going as an organization and where do you fit in. But the other one is curiosity, the ability to ask questions. Um, particularly in today's environment where there's more questions than answers and the boss can't have all of the answers because if he or she does, then they're either deluded or they're hiring the wrong people.

Speaker B: Um, completely agreed. It sounds like you're talking about people having some level of wisdom, being able to suspend their ego and focus on the problem at hand and look at how all of us could make it better together. That continuous curiosity, uh, so needed in leadership today.

Speaker A: Absolutely. It should be an exciting time. And it's One of the things we notice, uh, you asked about large companies. One of the things that's often lacking in large companies is imagination. So they're very, we see this with the application of AI in a lot of large enterprises. They're very good at uh, making a process 10% more efficient. They're not so good at making it 10 times better or even eliminating it. That's where often smaller companies have an advantage. They're not wed to multiple M silos who've been managing a process for many years. They're often much more restrained with resource. They simply want to get things out of their way so they can focus on the things that really deliver business outcomes to their customers. Customers.

Speaker B: So let's talk a little bit about AI. And you know, if I'm reading the book correctly, of course we want to completely redo processes, eliminate processes. We want this to make us more productive. And we've been talking a lot about having hybrid intelligence, that the humans have a great intelligence with the data. And in your book it mentions sometimes too much much data, it taking too long to make a decision. You know, how do you balance the 2? Not all AI is data based, right? You think visual intelligence, visual computing and of course there's data there. But how do you balance the data drive, all the data lakes being created with the decision making speed that we're at, looking, looking for?

Speaker A: I mean firstly we took some inspiration from General Stanley McChrystal who um, when he took on his role, uh, one of his roles in uh, uh, the U.S. one of the problems he found with the organization was all of the data was contained at the headquarters way, way removed from the special operators on the ground who were having to make quick decisions. So he talked about sharing data until it feels illegal, flooding the system with data, which I love because often our default is I'm going to protect my data in my silo, you have to ask me for permission. What we see a lot of organizations do now is change that and say, hey, you can only lock down your data if there's a good reason. Otherwise make it as accessible as possible because someone, somewhere unbeknownst to you is going to see some correlation in that data. Um, that's going to lead to the next business breakthrough. And rather than having a small group of individuals with access to the data, imagine having 100 or 1,000 employees with access to the data who are looking for patterns or applying it in novel ways we hadn't even thought about. So that's one thing that works. The other one is um, often we get too wet to the data. Um, and one of the tricks there is to listen for those anecdotes. Um, if a customer complains on social media that an order has been delivered slow, maybe it's an exception, but maybe, just maybe, that customer is seeing something which the data hasn't picked up yet. So even within Amazon, we think about being data driven, but we pay attention to those anecdotes too. There's a famous story when, um, in a meeting, Jeff Bezos was told that the average call center time was 10 minutes. He picked up the phone, called his own call center. Ten minutes later, he was still waiting. The data is often very good to show you what's happening on average, but often at the edges of that data, that's where there's going to be some interesting stuff happening.

Speaker B: Averages are definitely different than the median or your qualitative experience. Qualitative experience and bringing that into it. So it's democratization of data access so that people can see unique connections that you may not see, as well as, um, ensuring that we're not too wedded to it 100%.

Speaker A: Yeah. And giving people the tools. So even the data literacy, if you look at the, um, C levels of organizations, the level of technology literacy is still very low. You'd never hire a leader in marketing if they didn't understand finance or leadership. We should be getting there with organizational change management, with data, with technology too. Not to turn them into technologists, but to give them the literacy where they can have debates like, could technology do something different here? Or even do we need technology? Maybe this is a human issue or process issue we should fix.

Speaker B: So data literacy as a key component because obviously getting the data out there, if no one understands it in a way that could make unique connections, isn't helpful either.

Speaker A: Absolutely.

Speaker B: So as we end our time today, thank you so much for this conversation. Is there a place I love the choose your own adventure. So it depends on that organization which anti pattern is going to move us from Tim man to Octopus to get better results? Um, driving clarity, ownership and curiosity. Is there a place that when you're questioning or you're first working with a client, you've tended to see. This happens to usually be the starting place. I know I'm trying to narrow you from the adventure, but some adventures are predictable that at least you start out fighting the dragon. Is there one that you start with most often?

Speaker A: Uh, uh, I think let's take your Fighting a dragon. Um, uh, absolutely. Sometimes it's not clear what the dragon is an organization's trying to fight. So, uh, if you want your entire organization to move quickly in a resilient way in the same direction to solve some big problems, they have to know what the direction is and what those problems are. So we often start with clarity. We run into an anti pattern quite frequently we call, uh, we say, are you a team of leaders or a leadership team? Just, uh, give you an example. Often we'll find leadership teams sitting around the table. The boss says we're going to digitally transform or we're going to become an AI enabled organization. That everyone sits sagely nodding, leaves the room and then translates that into what does it mean for their function or even worse. But that sounded like a technology project. I'm sure the CIO's got that. No one articulates that. Um, and then that's why many transformations fail. And all it takes is for one leader in the room to put their hand up and say, hey boss, you want to digitally transform? What does that mean? How do we measure it? What are we going to stop? Who's accountable? Just asking those questions, simple questions, can stop a large initiative derailing from step number one. So I'd always start with that. And uh, just go to the front line of your organization, the people who are really doing the work, and ask the question, what is the purpose of our organization and what are the top three priorities? I think most organizations would be shocked about how few people understand what's being discussed at the senior levels for months and months and months and never makes it down to the front line or if it makes it down to the front line, it doesn't mean anything to them because they've got a different job to do.

Speaker B: Well, that's an important point because often they can state back what they've heard. They can use those words, but they're corporate speak.

Speaker A: Exactly.

Speaker B: They can't tell you what that actually means either for the organization or necessarily their team. Do you find that as well?

Speaker A: Oh, absolutely. It's what Scott Galloway calls yoga babble. Uh, it's uh, these mission statements. We're going to be, we're going to leverage our synergies as a corporation. Most people read that, number one is, are you going to get excited about leveraging your synergies? And secondly is, is that corporate speak for you going to lay people off? So yeah, just get down to why don't we use plain language? And often it's because we don't quite know what we're trying to say or we don't want to say. What we're trying to say. We don't want to say people could lose our jobs, but people aren't stupid. They can see through this stuff. So clarity of communication, it goes back to what Indra Nui said about storytelling clarity around what does great look like? If you can't do that, then everything else falls apart because everyone's pulling in a different direction.

Speaker B: Thank you so much for our listeners, the octopus organization. Thank you, Phil. And we will see you next time on on leadership.

Speaker A: Thank you, J. It.