The Human Factor Podcast Episode 74: The 5th Anniversary - Still Human

Speaker A: Foreign. Hello and welcome to the Human Factor Podcast. A series of conversations discussing the topics and themes influencing the world of work today. My name is Michael Esau.

Speaker B: My name is Simon Humphreys.

Speaker A: This episode of the Human Factor Podcast is a slightly different one. Today we will be celebrating the fifth anniversary of the Human Factor Podcast and instead of having our usual one guest, Simon and I are absolutely thrilled to invite back to the podcast four of our previous guests. And our objective on this episode is to do a couple of things. One, it's to pause and reflect on what's happened over the last five years, but also, where are we today and um, potentially what do we need to do differently in the future? Our uh, first guest is Gethin Nadine. Gethin is an award winning psychologist, author and um, workplace wellbeing expert who has spent more than two decades helping organizations improve employee experience, well being and organizational culture. Known for combining evidence based thinking with practical organizational insight, Gettin has become one of the most recognizable voices in the future of work and human centered leadership conversations. Our second guest is Sue Yell. Sue recently retired following an extensive and highly respected career in HR leadership, including her role as HR Director at Warburtons. Across her career, sue has been recognized for her pragmatic, people focused approach to leadership, culture and organizational transformation alongside a deep belief that great businesses are built through trust, clarity and human connection. Our third guest is Eric Tynch. Eric is a global people and transformation leader with more than 25 years of experience and leading large scale organizational change, leadership development and cultural transformation initiatives. His work has focused heavily on organizational capability, employee experience and the intersection between technology, leadership and human performance in complex global organizations. And finally, our fourth guest is Dr. Nancy Doyle. Nancy is a psychologist, researcher and internationally recognized expert and in neurodiversity, inclusion and workplace psychology. Her work focuses on helping organizations better understand cognitive diversity and create environments where people can thrive without masking who they are. Nancy brings a unique blend of academic rigor, practical insight and deeply human perspective to conversations around work, leadership and and inclusion. On this episode, Simon and I won't be doing our usual summary and reflection at the end. So just in case you're looking for that, we'll be doing our reflections through the conversation today in a nice practical way. So we hope you enjoy our anniversary episode of the Human Factor Podcast. Sue Yell, Gethin Nadine, Eric Tinch and Dr. Nancy Doyle. So this episode marks five years of the Human Factor podcast. Across 70 plus conversations, one thing has remained consistent behind every strategy, system and technology are people. So today, as I said we're going to reflect on that journey. It's not our intent on this episode to summarize the past five years. It's to explore what we've learned, continue to learn, and perhaps where our perspectives may differ slightly. So we thought we would do a couple of framing questions, if that's all right, just to open things up. And Nancy, if I may, I'm gonna come to you first. So when you reflect personally on the last five years, what stands out most to you? When you take a pause and you

Speaker C: look back over that time, it feels very frenetic. I'm sure that the, the whole world has felt this sense of speeding up and sort of barreling towards what feels like quite a major paradigmatic change in the way that we live. Feels like a reckoning is on its way. And, uh, that is both opportunistic and risk laden. And I think people are feeling that. I don't think anybody is not feeling that in different ways. I think, you know, working as a neurodiversity specialist, as I do, of course, that is very much so. In my industry, you know, we've gone from no one knowing the word neurodiversity to everybody knowing it, to everybody thinking that it was about superpowers, to everybody being really fed up with it and, um, massive rise in industrial tribunals. So we've been through a bit of a roller coaster specific to neurodiversity, and we're still in that. But I think that's, I think across the globe, in a lot of industries and in a lot of social contexts, there's a sense of rapid frenetic change that people are struggling to cope with on a daily basis, personally and professionally.

Speaker A: Sue, you've recently retired. So envious. Um, you were the chief people officer at, uh, Warburton's. So building on what Nancy just said that about that frenetic is, are we reaching a point of reckoning? When you reflect over the last five years, what's your viewpoint?

Speaker D: Yes, I mean, I absolutely concur with what Nancy, um, said. I think the nature, pace and, um, scale of uncertainty has been unprecedented. And I can't see that changing. And I think that that gives leaders huge challenges. It's never been tougher to plan ahead and prioritise in business and obviously to engage your people to come along on that journey with you. And I think the big difference for me is that leaders can't use their past experience to inform the future anymore. Um, we used to be able to do that to a greater or lesser extent. And now that need to anticipate shifts, to redesign, to work at pace. It's leading into the unknown. And I think that's really, really, really tough for leaders, but also for colleagues, for people within organizations who are in many ways on the receiving end of that. So for me that's the huge change in terms of that uncertainty, uh, in the world that we live in.

Speaker A: And Geffen, when you look at the last few years, has your thinking about people at work evolved elements, uh, of it reinforced, you know, what are some of your key observations?

Speaker E: If you look back over time, if you look over UK time, society changes and the workplace changes to reflect that. And I think if you look at any major workplace change, it happened on the back of something changing society. And as far back as the 1800s, that is, a kid dies in a mine in the north of England and somebody says, why are children working in mines? And then a law comes in and kids no longer work in mines. Fast forward to now. If you think of the pandemic, I guess as one of those key events that changed all of us, I guess, and changed society, it seems to be about 10 years later, ish, the workplace really catches up. And so we're only a midpoint through that 10 year timeline since the pandemic. And I think even on top of the pandemic itself, you could probably categorize a few maybe generation defining events that have happened even since 2020. And so I think that kind of change in society changes a lot to do with the workplace. And I think what we're starting to see and why we see so much friction between employees and employers is because we're stuck between that, that change where people are holding on to the old way of doing work, flexible, uh, and remote work is probably a great example of that where, you know, something we had for 100 years is no longer fit for the future. And there's a bit of strain with, with how we deal with that. The thing that worries me now is we've started to invest more in people. And then we're starting to hear words like we heard from the, the Standard Chartered CEO, uh, recently who basically described humans as kind of low value work and wanting to replace them with AI. And you know, it's a great example of the risk we have of turning back a lot of the good work that's been done. And I think also you compound that with CEO confidence. Is it a five year low, kind of record lows in 2026? And you've also had this kind of now decade long Deterioration in people's general well being, especially in the uk. And so there's a, a thick melting pot. So I agree with kind of Susan and Nancy as well that it feels like something's gonna almost explode because that's like, it feels like a perfect storm of a lot of complex things going. And I think some of the early indications in the research are, uh, that people are actually going to start withdrawing from work. If you look at the NEETs in the UK, so the, obviously Keir Starmer talked about this a couple of days ago. Those are people that are not employed, not in education, actively deciding not to work is now running into the millions. These are people just saying, I'm not going to work. And that should really, really worry us because I think the contract of what work exists for has, is falling down and we probably need to pull that back.

Speaker A: This is fascinating. We're only just scraping the uh, the top of the, the iceberg. Eric, when we met, we opened the conversation and we're very much talking about change. And we asked you what does change mean to you? And you gave us such a great statement. But one of the things that you said was it's one of the hardest things that a human being can do. So when we reflect on some of the comments we've heard here, the reckoning, the pace, the views of CEOs and how we're viewed as humans, where do you stand at the moment?

Speaker F: I think the evidence supports my statement from several years ago. The hardest thing for a human to do is change, recognize it, adapt, adopt, and then normalization. Right. So in my view, uh, I'll just call on a couple of points. I was just thinking about what the team has already said. Right. If you think about the pandemic and how it shifted everything worldwide, if you think about the Great Depression, if you think about World War I, not even World War II, World War I, you think about how all of us were so nervous about watching K. It is just a constant of the same, different day, different time. Now with the advent of AI and and M, most of us really just don't know. Right. And here's an example of that. For me, I was listening to Sam Altman, um, just two days ago when the guy said what I said three years ago that scared the world about AI and a job reckoning. I think I made a mistake. I don't think that to be true anymore. So for me, the notion of having companies manage change with a humanistic lens, that is still the order of the day, in my view.

Speaker A: Yeah, Mr. Humphries?

Speaker B: Well, I'm going to break from the script at the first question.

Speaker A: It's all good.

Speaker F: It's all good.

Speaker B: I'm going to ask you, Michael, when you reflect on the last five years, what stood out for you?

Speaker A: Oh, my word. Um, one of the things that you and I always spoke about, and I think it will come onto is I think we're in an era where we're technologically rich, but I think we're execution poor. And I think when we look at some of the real basic fundamentals of what a human being needs when they wake up in the morning, go to work, and then hopefully go home and say, I had a good day. So many things along that journey are just missing. And we're in 2026, and I think over the course of the five years and all the conversations we've had, Simon, it's still, if we do the basics brilliantly, we would move forward so much. But do we do the basics brilliantly? I'm not so sure we do. Simon, yours.

Speaker B: Well, unlike the word that Nancy used, which is paradigm shift, I think we're entering into another of those paradigm shifts. You remember when, but we don't remember when, but when humans invented the car, that was a paradigm shift, wasn't it? When the industrial age kicked in, that was a paradigm shift. Jobs were at risk. Everything was going to change. When robotics came in, that was the end of the person that put cars together and their jobs were going to disappear altogether. Now we're AI, and again, jobs are going to disappear. Everything's going to change. I think it's just another of those changes that we go through in cycles, like Eric mentioned, We go through this in a cyclical way and we adapt and we will change and we will come out of the other side of that just doing things differently again. Hopefully it's something not to be feared, but embraced.

Speaker A: If we take the view, then moving on to the sort of the first theme, as it were, that we are solution rich, technologically rich, but potentially we're execution poor. You look at the Gallup research, which has not long come out about the state of the workforce, it doesn't make great reading at all. So one of the things that we still observe is we talk a lot about change, but organizations still struggle to land it. In 2026, you will have people, on reflection, saying we should have invested more time managing the change, or, um, on business readiness, for example. So, Eric, what do you believe that we continue to say about change that doesn't actually match with Reality, Uh, it's

Speaker F: a great question, right. And, um, I think a heck of a lot more complex than our ability to explain it. Right. I think many organizations, uh, especially ours, right, we keep saying change management. We have to change, everyone has to change. But in my view, stating that fact does not move the needle. And I think many organizations, when that fact is stated, we somehow believe the fact is stated. Now, everyone knows we must change. Stating the fact does not drive the execution.

Speaker E: No.

Speaker F: I think realizing that human beings, all of us, regardless of our educational level, regardless of our economic standing, regardless of our social, economic, regardless, we need a handhold to show us where the new neighborhood is. Uh, walk me through all of the advantage of the new neighborhood. Show me where the new desk is. Show me the new process. But hold my hand and show me, uh, walk me through it. Because humans have this inherent fear of something different. So I think a lot of organizations believe. We stated it, we told you, the expectation is that the human will pivot. It just doesn't work that way.

Speaker A: Yes, exactly. Nancy, your thoughts on that?

Speaker C: I love change. I respond really well to change. I enjoy change. Change is when I work at my best. It's when I have my most creativity. I thrive in a changing environment. And I'm not alone. I agree I'm not in the majority, but I'm not alone. And I think that's worth remembering, is that humans are neurodiverse. If we haven't learned that lesson in the last five years, we've learned nothing. You know, some of us are specialists in one area, others are specialists in different areas. Some neurodivergent people are specialists in not changing, in routine, in rhythm, um, in structure, in repetition, in compliance. We need those humans. But some of us are experts in change. Some of us are experts in recalibrating, reconfiguring, seeing an absolute mess and going, hold on a second, here's the pattern. This is what's going to work. And then creating a structure. So I just want to just get that in there.

Speaker A: No, that's really, that's really good. And sue, if I can come to you based on the different schools of thought, and this is where the perspectives are, uh, really important. You worked in an organization that was literally on the tip of change constantly, you know, in terms of the consumer, the product, the impact of the global changes, et cetera. Do you think, therefore, that organizations are over complicating change or, or underestimating it?

Speaker D: Yes. So I mean, in terms of Warburtons, I mean, as you know, Michael we always have to be fleet of foot. We're, um, you know, six to our sixth generation of ownership, um, which is phenomenal. And I think one of the things that the organization has been really successful in is actually building a culture of incremental change. I think sort of in the past, businesses have been very guilty in terms of looking for one big idea that solves everything. And we know, I think it rarely does. So how you can help people work through this uncertainty, um, that we were talking about, um, I think is really, really important. And how it's not going to be one heroic push that moves the dial. It's lots of pushes, isn't it? In the same direction. And I think one of the things that businesses do is they overestimate that the hardwiring of the ch change is going to fix the problem. Let's put a different leader in and that that will all be. Be fine. And I think we then underestimate the capacity that people. You know, we talked before about the fatigue. Change. Fatigue, yeah. Um, because if you're not careful, it's just one thing after another. And, um, people just get really dizzy by all of that. So I think it's really, really important that, you know, we, we think very carefully about that capability and, um, the pace of the change as well, you know, too slow and the, uh, it becomes irrelevant too fast. And you, you know, you have that problem, um, with bringing your people with you.

Speaker A: So, Gethin and Nancy, so if we do take a step back and we do look at the research and we'll just take Gallup for the moment, right? Because I think it's a widely accepted piece of research. It's not great viewing, right? You look at the level of engagement, you look over the health and wellbeing, you look at leadership trust, you look at leadership engagement, it isn't great. So when you observe from a, uh, change lens or from an execution lens, what is it do you think we consistently get wrong?

Speaker E: So, first of all, I'd say if you look at the Gallup data, it didn't start off great. So it's got slightly worse. But it was never great to start off with engagement. Never been like super high or anything like that. Most people, most people are not engaged at work and kind of never have been if you look at that kind of research. I think one of the biggest challenges is those broadly responsible for people in an organization, I think. And again, this is backed up by quite a lot of research. 2026 research do not sit close enough to execution. There is a chasm that exists in many of the global companies that I work with between HR teams, people teams and the C suite and the board. A huge amount of data again to back this up, that Only something like 1 in 5 HR strategies actually align with the organizational strategies. And if you uh, and again a big chasm between what does a CEO want to do, what does a CEO want to drive in an organization and what is the people team trying to drive. I think that has stalled a lot of progress because it's stopped us from getting the investment and the attention to do the things that we want. And you know, HR teams again typically and generally speaking are not very good at asking for money in the same way that ever really commercial departments like sales and marketing are. I mean that's so strong. That's now what I lecture master's students around the world on, uh, for as part of my fellowship at King's College. Because it's. People are entering the workforce with no kind of commercial acumen in that sense. And so I think that's um, that's kind of really, really uh, interesting point. And I think the second part is when we think about growth, when we think about organizations growing, do we really think the people responsible again for the people function are ah, looking at how do I support that growth rather than just deal with the stuff that exists within that immediate team. And so I think for lots of the conversations I have with people leaders and HR teams around the world, that seems to be kind of ah, a broadening issue. Um, and I think that has also now been weaponized slightly, particularly in the US to, to downgrade efforts for DNI and everything else because it's kind of saying oh we tried it, it didn't work. Is that what. He didn't actually really invest in it, he didn't actually take it seriously. So that's why you didn't see the results. And um, I think linked to that as well. We kind of work in the wrong cycles. We almost put this economic lens over people in the workplace and treat them in a way that generally is a business in the way that we probably shouldn't. So if you think about in most businesses around the world, most industries, people still outweigh capital assets by kind of three times. Um, even in capital intensive businesses like manufacturing, your cost of people is still significantly more than equipment. Yet we look at equipment and we look at the investment over a long term. We're going to buy this machine, it's going to do extras over the next 10 years. We manage the depreciation of the asset, but we don't manage the depreciation of people. And so I think that's again, part of what is. What we kind of failed in is we just haven't thought about people as a long term investment or even as infrastructure in the same way that you might invest in cloud computing or cyber security. That's a long term investment. If you started thinking about people in a different way, I think we probably have different results.

Speaker C: Does that mean I can capex my training budget for staff?

Speaker E: Well, why not? I mean I was absolutely advocate for that. Yeah.

Speaker A: Nancy, your observations.

Speaker C: Yeah, Genius within has funded three PhDs, seven master's degrees and five bachelor's degrees in the last, uh, slightly over five years. But yeah, we have. I don't know, I kind of, I think what Gethin said I totally agree with and I've just got a slightly different perspective at the moment, which is complementary, I think, which is to go back to the first principles. And there was something Susan said at the beginning about, you know, we have no guidance, you know, that in the way that uh, the past is the best predictor of the future. So much is changing. How on earth are we supposed to use our past experience to go forward? I think there are a few things from past experience that we can take forward because human beings haven't evolved as quickly as our technology and our brains are still with propensity for the same biases, preferences and strategies. So, you know, there's a few things we know about change, which is that during periods of change, what people need is visible, communicative, honest, transparent, uh, authentic communication. So we need to communicate more often during change. We need to be more authentic. We need to re, we need to level with people and we need to not hide behind fancy schmancy words and just really be very clear about what we're up to and why and bring people with us. And we do know that, and that is still true and that is still working. You know, where we've got people doing that, it's working for them in their leadership careers. Um, you know, not always to the best use of everybody else in society, I might add. But the leaders who are the seen as the most down to earth and the more and the most, you know, just like me and the most kind of speaks off the cough rather than in a rehearsed speech are the leaders who are, who are gaining in popularity. So I think that is a lesson we can take from the past that we can take forward. And then the other one, I would say that we can take from the past that we could take forward is that it's never a bad idea to lean into values. What we want is people with engagement and purpose. Then m. What's our meaning? Where are our values? How can we demonstrate that we're not letting go of our values during a period of change? You know, we actually had this discussion in a board meeting this week at Genius. Within, uh, we invited our employee. We have an employee reference Genius group, which, because we're not a large enough company to have, like, specific categories, so we just have like a mixed group that represents the general theme of EDI and inclusion across the company. We gave them a slot in our board meeting to come and give us feedback. What was working, what wasn't working, what were they seeing that was visible? What's not visible? What do we need to do more of? I think you can do those things. You can lean into those values, and then that does drive more meaning and more purpose for people. So I think there's two. Those are. They're not necessarily very detailed plans, but, uh, but I think they are things that we can learn from the past, that we can take forward in the future in leadership that will work and will bring people with us.

Speaker A: And Sue, I'll come to you, sue, for just a second. Bruce Daisley spoke. Uh, he opened about keynote at our conference recently. And there were two things that came out. One was around human connection and really humans and that need to connect. But I think the second one was that people want to feel like they matter. And I think through execution and through change, it's recognizing that people want to feel correct.

Speaker C: Just stop it there. People want to feel like they matter. People just genuinely want to feel. You know, that's. That's the thing that's being extracted out of us is. Is human interaction and responsiveness and emotions. And I. I sense a backlash coming there. I mean, there is a big old. We are. That's. That's. The next thing that's going to happen is. Is the big old backlash against the inauthenticity of AI. Against the inauthenticity. I mean, that's. That's, you know, that's written in at this point. That's baked in. I'm looking forward to seeing the, um, the level and manner, um, in which that backlash manifests itself. There's one way already. Do you know, there's a group of, um, high school students in New York that call themselves the Luddites, and they refuse to have smartphones. They've only got flip phones. And they spend their free time meeting up in parks to read books. I love that.

Speaker A: Yeah, Sue.

Speaker D: Thanks, Michael. I mean I was just going to um, make the point. Michael, you know this within Warburtons, I mean we call it our orange thread, which is our values. So these have existed in the business for basically 150 years and they almost get translated by osmosis through the family generations. But they are so important to what is essentially 5,000 people blue collar workforce. And we've just done a big exercise in modernizing those values, making them fit for future. And we have a what we call a behavioral excellence framework, which is basically the day to day manifestation of those values. We promote on them, we recruit on them, we manage performance on them, we manage recognition against them. And everybody recognizes those values within our business. And any behavior that is not in line with those values is challenged and managed. So I totally concur with the point about authenticity. And I think you come back for, uh, just to talk about the change point. Sometimes I think the rationale or the reason for change is a manager's reason, not a business reason. And um, that also can be the beginning of it unraveling because people see it for what it is.

Speaker C: Agreed.

Speaker A: Uh, and we'll talk about leadership a little bit later on. But I think just coming on to the end of this theme around change and execution. So Simon, I'm going to hand over to you now because I think, you know, we've just been talking there about human connection and to Nancy's point, to feel for something to be authentic that I matter. So over to you, sir.

Speaker B: Yeah, thank you. And that's really what we want to look at in our second theme. It's the human being elements. We've been passionate about that on the podcast. Obviously many of our conversations have talked about change, but they've also talked about the human being, you know, within change and not even necessarily relating to change. We're all at work, we're all at home, we all experience life and we want to sort of drill into some of those words that we connect on a day to day basis with human beings. But do we actually really mean it? Do we actually really see it and do we feel it? So we're talking about words like belonging, safety, connection. And what does that really actually mean? Uh, and what, what happens if it's not that? So yeah, maybe Gethin, we could come to yourself first and let's just explore one of those words. Safe. What does feeling safe at work actually look like?

Speaker E: I think the safety at work Is. Or the word safe at work. Sorry, uh, it's got kind of multiple meanings for lots of people. I think. I think we can't feel safe with work anymore. I think the idea of being secure in work, I think that's just gone. I think the generations before us who could work for 40 years in the same company, it's just not going to happen. So I think the security side of safety I just don't think is there anymore. So I think in the modern context, I think it really comes down to we kind of already talked about it. But you know, what do I feel when I'm at work? Do I feel safe? Do I feel like there are people looking out for me? Do I feel like the business has got my best interests at heart? Do I feel like when life gets really tough, as it will for all of us through various different life cycles, will the business be there for me? Will the organization support me through that transition, whatever might be happening? And also an extension of that is the psychological safety angle, right? So that's the, ah, do I feel like I'm contributed? Do I feel like I've got a voice? Do I feel like I'm listened to? Um, and is that opinion valued even if it's not acted upon? I think that's fundamental, basic human requirement, right? That's what people want. And I think as work moved away from this transactional relationship between employee and employee, you come to work, you get paid, you go away. That's not how work works anymore. So people have to have some element of care, I guess. Uh, I think safety is kind of caring. I guess if I was to sum it up in that way.

Speaker B: And it's, uh, an incredibly broad term, isn't it, as you've articulated it can mean many different things. Safety of your job, safety to express yourself, physical safety, psychological safety, and so on. So another, uh, word that goes with safety often is trust. So, Eric, if I could come to yourself, where or what do organizations do that unintentionally damages trust, in your opinion?

Speaker F: Yeah, I was just listening, uh, to the team here, and I was actually saying to myself, oh, my God, what do we do? It's such a calamity, right? Such a calamity. But I think when it comes to the human lens, trust seems to get boiled down to some very simple points, right? Say what you mean, do what you said you were going to do. Show me the evidence of that. Now, I can give you a huge psychological profile of what that means, but at the end of the day, it comes down to some of these basic factors. Communicate with me, share, say what you mean, and then back that up, um, by your actions. Even if there are only two actions that I think becomes the center of the universe when it comes to trust. Right.

Speaker B: When we use the word unintentionally damage that it's the reverse of that then. So, yeah, I'm saying something, but I don't do the follow up. You're saying that that is the, the bit that unintentionally damages that trust. I don't, I don't intend to not do something. I just don't follow it up with you. It's, uh, that unintentionality that was there because nobody really wants to go to work and set out to hurt people, to damage people, as maybe some do. Um, I think they're sociopaths, aren't they? Um, but you know, the world is full of people that unintentionally put that damage in there. Uh, and it's about recognizing those scenarios, isn't it? Nancy?

Speaker C: This is leading me to a little riff I very often go on regarding management and leadership, which is that followership, membership is also important here. And another constant pattern from the past that we can learn from the future is that members and followers expect leaders to be perfect and get very upset when we're not. And, uh, that's an unrealistic, immature, emotionally immature, childish expectation. Organizational hierarchy hierarchies aren't parent child relationships. Your manager is not your mummy and not your daddy either. Um, and you are an adult and, and, and we lose that message. And I think that something that I think I'd like to hear leaders do more of is just fessing up when they've made a mistake. You know, and we're not, we're just not hearing enough of that and just going, you know what, you're absolutely right, I did overlook that. I said I'd do it and I completely forgot. And, and just being okay with that and going, right, and now I'm going to make amends, you know, on an individual case basis. That will work. But the more that happens, the more we will start to develop narratives that leaders are not perfect. Leaders should not be perfect. Leadership isn't about a great hero that comes in with a cape, that rescues everybody and suddenly somehow knows better than everybody else all the time, in every possible area. Leadership is about steering. It's about holding the big picture view. It's about holding that responsibility and accountability. And that includes being imperfect sometimes, you know, But I really think we need to change the narrative about what leadership is and move away from the great man theories of leadership and move away from hero structures of leadership more into, uh, shared leadership, balanced leadership teams, you know, and situational leadership, which is just much more effective. But yeah, shared leadership, please.

Speaker E: I would just, I would just add to your point, Simon, about the intentionality piece. I think that's quite interesting because I think, think as far as the employee is concerned, I don't think the intention matters. I think if your boss says you're going to have a pay review and I'll talk to you about it Friday, and you gear yourself up and you get yourself ready for that, and you get excited for that, and then it doesn't happen because they were busy. That's what erodes the trust that Eric is talking about. And it doesn't matter if that boss, the bot, you can turn that around clearly the boss can come back, explain what happened, and then kind of course correct that, like Nancy said. But the intentionality, I don't think, I don't think really kind of matters in this scenario.

Speaker B: Uh, and that's differentiating between trust and outcome, isn't it? Because the outcome might not be one that the receiver might want or expect or hope for, but the trust is there because the feedback and the communication has been open and has provided that information. It's the void of information that often breaks that trust down, isn't it?

Speaker E: Well, like Eric said, if the trust is there, then you get forgiven that mistake because you trust the boss, you know, they've got the best interest. Like I said earlier on, if you feel like you work for an organization that cares about you, you get a lot of grace, I think with that employer. And I think Eric's absolutely right. I think if you really think about the foundational of like really pushing that kind of trust out, then it sets you up for a really good, good employee experience, I guess.

Speaker B: Uh, and that's that two way street, isn't it? It's, you know, having trust in your leaders, but also the leaders having trust in you. You know, the ability to make a mistake and not have a ton of bricks dropped on you, you know, from a high height. It's, it's a two way street and it works both way. It's not just a one way direction.

Speaker A: Uh, Michael, So Eric, building on what you said, and this is my perception and an observation, has trust become this quite brittle thing? So me as an individual, human, as a consumer, do I have patience anymore? Do I have loyalty anymore? Am I more judgmental than I Was before. I accept. Nancy, has the DNA of the human being changed? No. But has the conditions in which I live my life changed? Yes. So is trust therefore much more brittle than perhaps it once was? And is that the reason when Gethin was mentioned about CEO trust and board level trust and leadership trust, is that why we're seeing it really impacted?

Speaker F: Uh, it's a great question. Right. I, I, I have a very, probably a very, very stringent view on trust myself.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker F: I do not believe it's more rare than it's been in the past. What I think has shifted. I think many leaders believe that it's adjustable. I think many leaders think it's adjustable and it's situational and I should use it when it's most beneficial. I don't think it's more brutal. Just many leaders have now started to think it's adjustable and it's situational. Right. What I've experienced myself is I lean heavily into trust. I try to speak exactly what I believe, and I hold myself accountable to that. Right. And I often talk about trust. Over the last two years at our current company, we introduced something that's called a, uh, trust index. Would you rather have a person on your team who is just an expert at everything with a low, a moderate level of trust, or, uh, would you rather have a person who is pretty good?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker F: But they have a high level of trust? Most people will choose the person who's pretty good.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker F: With a high level of trust.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker F: So I don't think it's more brittle. I feel a lot of leaders have somehow started to think, uh, it's adjustable or situational. Yeah, that's the differentiation, Sue.

Speaker D: Yeah. So I, I absolutely agree that to have the connection with leaders and an organization is quite a powerful combination because I think when you don't have congruence, that's a problem because you'll just get pockets of trust. I mean, what you want is that, you know, everybody, uh, with their noses north and sort of, uh, facing in the same direction. I think one of the things that can erode trust is when leaders, what I call flip flop, so they just change direction. They don't communicate it, they don't explain it, there's no background to it. And people sort of, uh, very quickly kind of lose confidence. And I think it comes back to leaders having to work against a very ambiguous backdrop. If things are certain, leaders can move quickly and they know what to do. But of course, things aren't certain these days. And I think another thing that's really important for senior leadership teams, particularly if they're looking to deliver growth. Because that in and of itself means doing different things and things differently. That you need to have that air cover that if you are going to try something new, that you're not going to be ridiculed for it. That there isn't reprisal. And I think it's really difficult for organizations to create that climate of brutal candor because if you are really going to have psychological safety, you have to have that. And I'm not sure many organizations are mature enough to be able to do that. But it's absolutely key.

Speaker C: It's hard. That level of psychological safety is hard. You have to make yourself vulnerable. You have to talk about things that people don't want at all talk about. You have to have open pay scales and, and bandings for pay grades for different or for different levels in the organization and you have to stick to them. And you know, you have to have things like that. And it's, it is, it's, it's not for the faint hearted but I do, I think it's, I think it's rewarding. And you know I, I've seen some big organizations that are doing this really well in my travels recently. I mean I would admit the people that are coming in to, to bring us in for kind of whole organization culture, neurodiversity inclusion culture would be the organizations that will be doing this well, doing it well. So it is possible and I'm sure they won't mind me name dropping them but, but EON are a company that we're, that we're working with and they're a big, you know, they're a big company. They're a national energy provider and um, they've got a big mix of, of different types of, of employee and their psychological safety scores are repeatedly in their well being assessments. Repeatedly. Over four as an average out of five. You know, over four. Over four, over four. We were looking at that as a marker of, of impact. We were like oh, the baseline data is too high. We're never going to get this. So we had, we had to separate the average for the company from the neurodivergent people. And I'm very proud to tell you that we were able to move it for the neurodivergent people. Clap, clap, clap. But the point is it was already very high. It was so high that we were like oh no. So yeah, I think it is possible to do that but it is not for the faint hearted. And you do have to really invest in It.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker B: So if we drill down on that phrase, then psychological safety itself, is that sometimes overused or under delivered? In terms of reality, it's an overused phrase.

Speaker C: People have, um, misunderstood it as personal safety. So people think personal safety is the same as psychological safety? Psychological safety is very specific. It's about risk management, health and safety. Blame cultures. It's a very specific thing identified, um, as the cause of big accidents like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Um, it's where people don't feel able to point out where something's wrong, to admit they've made a mistake, to identify a risk, to take a risk. Um, and it's a very precise and particular thing. But it predicts organizational success pretty well. So it's worth investing in.

Speaker B: Let's swing back to, you know, impact. Um, so sue, if I can come to you. Often it's a small thing that can suddenly trigger a big emotional reaction. And that could be positive or it could be negative. You know, we're working in, in the world of human beings, pay often triggers emotional reactions. Start leaving a job can trigger a reaction. Erosion of trust could trigger that reaction. Well, what have you observed in terms of those small behaviors that can actually have the biggest emotional reaction as a result?

Speaker D: Yeah, I mean, I think you come back to leaders and managers who get the best results are those that are open, they're authentic, they can provide people reassurance. And I would come back to that. Fundamentally, they have an interest in their people. It's that, um, you know, we're back to that whole kind of connection piece. And I think leaders often underestimate the. How you can use softer skills to deliver hard results. You know, the power of appreciation, recognition. I mean, we really shouldn't underestimate that. And again, seen in organizations that I've worked for, the power of just small things influencing behaviors in line in Warburton's, in line with the espoused values. And you know, I think it's being able to nurture and being able to support. I think the difficulty leaders have today is that they're so busy they're almost overwhelmed. And, you know, we have people in the organization who require help and support and, you know, do we set up our leaders for success to enable them to do that? I'm not sure. We always do.

Speaker C: Can I just come in on that? Can we talk about sending AIs to meetings that we don't have time to go to? Because that is the most ridiculous practice I've seen in my. In the last couple of years. So People don't have time to go to the meetings, so they send their otter AI or they send their AI to go to the meeting and take the minutes. Can I just put forward that perhaps if you don't have time to go to the meeting, you don't have time to process what was in the meeting. And perhaps you should slow down a bit, you know, like literally. And this, this is back to this thing about human beings. Brains haven't changed. The amount of information we can process in one go has a reasonable limit to it. And what I reflect on is when all meetings were in person, the travel to and the travel from was reflection and preparation time. We arrived at meetings in a better state because we knew we'd thought about it on the way there. And we followed up from meetings in a more authentic way because we had time to think about it when we left the meeting. We don't give ourselves that break anymore. And so therefore, uh, we're not very productive in meetings anymore. We've got a lot of very bad, badly run meetings because people are not prepared for them and they're not following up. If you then add sending in the AIs to the meetings, you don't even have time to go. It becomes an absolute farce at this point, as far as I'm concerned. And actually what we should all be doing is getting better at prioritizing which AI can help you with. It genuinely can really help you with that one. So use the AI to prioritize which meetings you should actually go to rather than try to digest the entire content of all of them. Because that's nonsense.

Speaker D: Um, sense.

Speaker B: And for me, a personal theory is it's not the outcome that triggers the emotional impact. It's the journey you take to get that outcome that triggers that emotional impact. Have you been listened to? Have you had your voice heard? Has someone given you the right information and communicated it well, versus the counterpoint of that, uh, triggering the reaction that, okay, I have to leave my job, but I've been treated fairly, I have to leave my job and nobody's told me what's going on. Those are two very different emotional reactions, albeit with the same outcome. So that's just my personal theory as well. It's the journey, not necessarily the outcome, that leads us there. But what we're doing now, I think, is we're just now moving into leadership. And we've talked about that a few times in those first two things. So I'm going to hand over to Michael to sort of take that further forwards.

Speaker A: You've made a number of references about leaders and leadership and what it looks like, what it feels like. And we were joined by Richard Jolly, uh, earlier this year. And Richard was a professor at London Business school for about 20 years. And we were talking about, you know, the generation coming into the workplace. We were talking about career pathing, career laddering, et cetera, people aspiring to be the next set of leaders. And his view was, is that that path just does not exist in the same way. He said he doesn't believe that the generation coming through are looking at the senior leaders and thinking, yeah, I aspire to be you. You know, they're looking at it thinking, no, I don' aspire to be you. I don't think that that's my ideals. So I'm going to narrow this down to two questions, if I may. And the first one is, is that when we look at leadership, we often then talk about growth. So let's just focus on the growth question for one moment and just think about it in a quite abstract way. So, sue, if I can come to you first. When you stop and think about growth, what does that actually mean to you from a philosophy standpoint or even from a strategy standpoint? Because I think in some ways that they're two different things.

Speaker D: Yeah, I mean, my, my start point for growth in, in a business is what is going to improve performance? What is going to deliver value for that particular business? And I think sometimes the mistake that we make is that there are just general philosophies and principles and there are, uh, I mean, we could all sort of mention what, what we like our, ourselves. But I think you have to always be context specific. And it's, there are nuances in terms of different leadership practices. And, um, skills work better in some organizations than others. And I, I think we, we make the mistake of sometimes we'll leave an organization, we get promoted. So what we try and do is we take what was successful from a growth leadership perspective in that organization and try and almost lay it like an acetate over the new one. And if people do that in Warburtons, we get tissue rejection because that just does not work. But I think, you know, you have growth of an individual and you have growth that is required to deliver business performance. And I think it's a balance of those two things. And certainly when I've put together a, um, leadership development programs, they've taken into account both of those things.

Speaker A: So, Eric, when you think about growth in the context of Sutherland Global, you know, so from a philosophy standpoint, but also then starting to think about the role that leaders. And when we say leaders in our context, it's anybody managing, uh, you know, a human being, as it were, you know, what role do they play in that, that. But going back to everything we've said today, how is the organization supporting that leader with the requisite capability to enable and support that growth?

Speaker F: Yeah, it's a bit of a puzzling one. Right. And I was just listening to, um, Susan's comments and I think it's a culmination of what you heard from Susan, uh, what you've heard from Nancy Getton. In my view, there is no box there. There is no cookie cutter answer to the type of leader that is required, in my view.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker D: Yep.

Speaker F: We have an approach inside of Sutherland that we simply call grow your own way. It is a huge success across our company at every level. Grow your own way way. If you want work, life balance and you want to leave at 5pm each day, great. You still have to do your job. You still have to perform well. Here's the criteria. But we'll see you tomorrow. If you want to fast track, here is what's required in order for you to fast track. If you want to do whatever your heart desires. Not leaving out, we have to perform well. We have to deliver on the numbers, but you decide and we have financial compensation and growth trajectories assigned to that. If you want to accelerate, this is what it could mean for you financially. If you like your own pace. Awesome. What can we do to help you? But the notion of growing your own way and being very transparent about it. Here's an example. There are a couple of leaders who report to me and they often talk to me about the next level, the next promotion. I don't miss my words. I tell them, this is what it's going to take. If this is what you want to pursue, here's what I will assist with. Here's what the organization will assist with. If you want to shift the rate of speed, here's exactly what you need to do to shift that rate of speed. But being very transparent about it and then aligning to our own internal philosophy, you really can grow your own way.

Speaker A: I like that because that's philosophical. That's a philosophical choice. But Eric, Deborah's out. Organizations still need guardrails. Yeah. Because the organization's got to perform. The organization has got to achieve what it's setting out to achieve. So building in that autonomy. Grow your own way, I assume, is still within some degree of guardrails.

Speaker F: Oh, Absolutely. The guardrail. I think Susan and Nancy both highlighted it. Right, right. At the start of every fiscal year, there's an operating plan. The operating plan is sacrosanct. The operating plan is the guard. We cannot sacrifice our growth and our sustainability. We can't. That's the guardrail. So what you would hear from any leader inside of Sutherland, you would hear, here's the operating plan. This is what we have to deliver. This is what is going to take from leaders at varying levels to deliver on that operating plan, on that promise. That's the guardrail.

Speaker A: That's the guardrail.

Speaker F: So that's the balance.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: So the second question then. So, Nancy and Gethin, let's take into account everything we've talked about today. We've talked about connection. We've talked about improving execution. We're touching on growth because we know that as we enter into the next period, will we see a shortage of skills? Will we see demographic shifts where we perhaps in some cases don't have enough people? Therefore, will internal mobility become even more important? Will retention become even more important? So when you take a step back and you think about the organizations that you're working with, what capability do you believe will define leadership over the next three, four, five years? Nancy, if I can come to you

Speaker C: first, I think it's going to be, uh, the ability to maintain a clear values and purpose message, to communicate transparently, um, and to cope with change and to. And to be able to. To be seen to be coping with change. It's not just coping with change, it's being seen to be coping with change. Being seen to be, um, responsive, um, creative and to stick. Steer a ship through choppy waters. I mean, internally, we call Genius, the good ship Genius. You know, um, we're in choppy waters. Uh, on the bridge. Have we got a clear idea of where we're going? And can we steer a ship through choppy waters? That's what's going to define leadership. And does the rest of the ship not trust the captain to do that?

Speaker A: And we come back to trust again, right?

Speaker C: Yeah, we do. Yeah. Well, if you can clear the ship through stroppy waters, that's a Freudian slip. Stroppy waters is pretty much what we're on, isn't it?

Speaker E: I think it's probably about right.

Speaker C: That's. That's a new phrase I've just invented. We're in droppy waters. Gonna be using that one internally,

Speaker D: but

Speaker C: yeah, if you can be seen to be doing that and you're doing it well, that is the trust you need right now. People need to believe in their leaders. They need to believe in our competence because everywhere we can see incompetent leaders. So they need to believe that we can do it.

Speaker E: So I think there's, there's a few things to unpack here. So, um, you're absolutely right. Young people do not want to be managers. That comes up quite a lot in the data. Something like 2/3 or 3/4. It's pretty big number of people don't see it in their careers. I think that leads back to this growth and this building on what a couple of people have said already, which is this linear path of career growth in an organization typically ends at management or goes through management. That's got to change, right? Because it can't be the trajectory of everyone to be to get the next job to go the next. You've got to have management responsibility. I think that's led us down this path. If you get in a manager job because of tenure or technical ability, ability, not actually because your ability to coach or lead people, very unique skill set. I've advocated for the employee for 20 years or so. Having two teams report to me is the most difficult part of my job. Managing people is the most difficult part of the job, hands down. And so you've almost got to take management out of this hierarchy and move it to the side. And I think in my second book I referred to it as being almost like the matri d of the workforce. So actually they're there to support the talent, to make sure that what you need to deliver and uh, I'll be there to give it. So it's not the top person of the team. It sits alongside the team almost like a sports coach would be. And I think that that will really help to redefine what is that role because it is a role. It's not just you do your job and by the way, you also manage 10 people, which is what it is I think still for most people. So I think there's, there's that piece there and I think when you look about what's going to be important, I genuinely feel like people are going to become even more important to, to the workforce. Course, the greater the adjunction with A.I. uh, we're at a point in the moment where despite what you read in the news, AI isn't replacing people. Typically those announcements come after poor results. So I don't really believe that people like letting people go on mass as we're reading about it. But there is going to be a long Period of time where AI is supporting the human experience at work and vice versa. And when you start looking at the research around what makes AI adoption really effective, what makes somebody use the tool regularly, daily, multiple times a day, day, who, what is the profile of type of person that gets the most out of AI and gets highest productivity? Sidebar about experts about split on a uh, thinking that AI might actually reverse the UK 75 year productivity Ah decline is a 5050 chance that AI might be one of the tools that kind of breaks us through that, that decades of long decline since the 50s. So this is why it's kind of a big bet for businesses and CEOs when you look at the conditions to make somebody really want to engage in AI, uh, and use all comes down to a lot of stuff we've talked about. I'll categorize that really high level as kind of well being. There's a lot of research that says the higher your well being, the more you feel like you work for an organization that cares for you. The more you trust your employer, the more supported you feed in your role, the more likely you are to use AI, the more likely you are to get benefit from AI and the more likely you are to get the productivity gains from AI. And so that's a human experience. We talk a lot about AI, a piece of tech, but the underlying thing is actually there's a cultural piece here that needs to come back to the surface for us to be able to get those investments from AI. And linking to my very first point about how do you make the people exper or the people department if you like, sit close to execution? If you look at the research around CEOs and their views of AI, you've got something like almost 100% of CEOs say that they are their company's lead or lead decision maker when it comes to AI.

Speaker B: AI.

Speaker E: Half of CEOs say that they believe their reputation now relies on getting the AI, uh, investments that they've made, uh, correct and backing onto that. Uh, Wall street is aggressively backing spends on AI and investors are freeing up money for AI. There's a lot of people, whether we believe it or not, who think this is going to change the fortunes of commercial entities. And so that's put a huge amount of pressure on CEOs. If you want to deliver what the CEO wants, which is more gains, gains productivity gains from AI, then it starts with people investment. And if you start looking at the, the emerging CEO, uh, talent outlooks from people like Deloitte and KPMG, and PwC, you start seeing that there's two things on CEO's mind. It's tech, but it's talent. It's really fascinating to see the CEOs I hear speak and the chief people officers spend time with this word culture. Coming back through this digital transformation. It's, I guess it's the, the more things change, the more they stay the same, right? But yeah, yeah, I think, I think it's definitely going to start. People are going to start to become even more important to the experience. And if you look at the skills required for the future of work, human skills are significantly outpacing digital skills. So everyone's talking about people who know how to use AI and have the literary skills. It's still relationship building, business development, all that kind of stuff is still emerging as the skills that are most required. And certainly outpacing digital skills feels.

Speaker A: Great insights everybody. You know, these are the reflections that we wanted today, right? These are the, the thoughts and the insights and the wisdom. So Simon, I'm gonna um, I'm gonna pass back to your good self because I think we're gonna do a little bit of a quick fire, aren't we?

Speaker B: Yeah, a little bit of a change from our normal episode structures. We're ah, gonna have a quick fire round. I've got a question for each of you and looking for your first and immediate reaction thoughts to the question. Question. So Eric, I'm going to come to you first. No pressure, but when you, when you hear the word the human factor, what three words bring to you? And I don't mean the podcast by the way, I just mean the human factor. In a esoteric sense, what three words spring to mind?

Speaker F: It is the greatest influence and the greatest impact that any organization can have. And if any human can embody two principles, I believe it makes a difference. An ability to inspire and an ability to influence.

Speaker B: Outstanding guess them coming to you. What do we need to stop pretending works?

Speaker E: What do we need to stop pretending work? Uh, what a great question. I think that not investing in people. If I can kind of pull it back to a question I'd rather answer, uh, not investing in people is a kind of way out of this. I think people are the way out of, of whatever mess you are in as an organization. The stuff we talked about at the start, you know, I think organizations and the amount they invest in people and how adaptable people were during the pandemic and how adaptable people will continue to be way before the technology kind of catches up with it, you know, there's so much research about this kind of, um, hope as a strategy and care as a strategy and well being as a strategy. Organizational effectiveness is linked directly to the way you treat your people at work. Work and some businesses in the past have got away with not doing that. There are big online retailers that became the poster child for how not to treat people in the workplace and still made a lot of money. A few slips through the net. But for everyone else, it's a people first attitude is where your success lies. And I, I genuinely believe that.

Speaker B: I'm loving these answers. Eric and Gethset, a very high bar for you, Sue. Next. So this one's coming to you. What leadership behavior will matter more in the future?

Speaker D: So I think it's being able to problem solve, to enable people to experiment safely and to just be more of a disruptor. I think as people are leading into, you know, more of the unknown than the known, I think it's really important that we can look at process, people, culture, everything in terms of how do we improve, how do we, we get better results with the engagement of our people, not at the expense of them.

Speaker B: Fantastic. Coming to yourself, Nancy. What's a small thing that leaders do that makes a big difference?

Speaker C: Fess up.

Speaker B: Excellent.

Speaker C: Fess up. What leaders do that makes a big difference. Fess up. Fess up when you failed. Fess up when you don't know. Fess up when you forget. Fess up when you're human and you are imperfect. But fess, fess up and do it as an adult. You know, you don't have to do it as a guilty child. You don't have to be throwing yourself on people's mercy. You don't have to be a burning martyr, but just fess up.

Speaker B: Fantastic. Now for the next two questions. Final two questions. Walking. One word, one word only. I'm going to come to each of the four of you. So what one word would you ban from the workplace? Sue, let me come to you first.

Speaker D: Strategy.

Speaker F: Watching.

Speaker B: Oh, nice.

Speaker E: Guessing meetings.

Speaker B: Oh, are you getting a lot of thumbs up for that one, Eric?

Speaker F: It's a tough one. I mean, there's so many. I, I think if I had to choose one. Um. Me.

Speaker C: Me.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Me.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Very good.

Speaker F: I think, I think I just me would be the one. I'd say you can't juice it anymore.

Speaker A: More.

Speaker B: Yeah. Fantastic. And, um, Nancy, reasonable adjustments. Okay. A hyphenated word. Go on. We'll let that go through. Lovely. Thank you.

Speaker D: I just may add, I mean, it's not a word I. They're not words I would ban, but, um, I worked with somebody in one. One of the companies and who said that there were two words that don't mean anything in business. Always and never.

Speaker B: Okay, lovely. And I'm going to put him on the spot because you're not prepared for this. But Michael should.

Speaker A: Okay, I hate the word should. It's just lost in that ether of, um, you should have done this or you should have done that or you should have done it this way. Well, I didn't.

Speaker E: So there's a whole sentence there, isn't there? About like, should you have a meeting with me about reasonable adjustments or something?

Speaker B: So final question.

Speaker C: Should you have a strategy meeting with me?

Speaker A: With me?

Speaker D: There you go.

Speaker C: With me.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker C: I think strategy meetings about reasonable adjustments is pretty much the content of my, my day job.

Speaker B: So now we've set an even higher bar that we've got to connect all these together. So the second question then, um, Nancy will come to you first. One word for the future of work.

Speaker C: Purpose.

Speaker B: Okay, Eric?

Speaker F: Pliable. Pliability.

Speaker B: Just outstanding. Sue.

Speaker D: Challenging.

Speaker B: Challenging. Yeah. Recognize that, Gethin?

Speaker E: Uh, a bit saccharine, but human.

Speaker B: Oh, yeah. I, ah, heard nobody say the word inspiring anywhere in there unless. Unless Michael's gonna cup it. That was yours, was that. There you go.

Speaker A: Well, in all fairness, in all fairness, there was a professor from London Business School, and he's no longer with us, which is a, a real shame. And he did a lecture, uh, it was in Amsterdam, and he just said to this group of leaders, do you inspire? When you look in the mirror as leaders, do you believe that you inspire the people who work for you? And it just made a whole bunch of people very uncomfortable in their seats, and I really loved it. So I think people do want to feel inspired, but there's many other things they want to feel as well.

Speaker B: Absolutely. But I think my favorite though is pliable. I think that's a lovely way of describing that, uh, liability. So, I mean, uh, look, thank you to everybody, everybody for, for sharing your thoughts and, and coming back onto the, the podcast. I thoroughly enjoyed those conversations. Um, if we look at, you know, the last five years of the episodes that we've had, I think it's, it's taught us one common thing and that's that the world itself continues to change. But the human factor is critical throughout that. Really appreciate your contributions and your thoughts and your time, but also thank you also to my co host, Michael. This is the, uh, now in our sixth year, we've been doing this for five years. We started out lockdown in Covid when we first started doing this. There's been laughter and there's been tears, but here's looking forward to the next five years and having you all back for our 10 year anniversary when it arrives. Thank you so much to everybody and we'll say good night.