Speaker 1: Welcome to Hacking Your Leadership. I'm Chris and I'm Lorenzo
Speaker 1: and Lorenzo on this episode, what I want to do
Speaker 1: is go over more of these actioms of zombie leadership
Speaker 1: that we started discussing last Monday. You know, we had
Speaker 1: a considerable amount of feedback from our listeners that liked
Speaker 1: the discussion and asked for more of them. They you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's a few of them on this this chart
Speaker 1: that I found, and they wanted us to go over
Speaker 1: more of them. And there are specific ones that we had,
Speaker 1: you know, people mentioned more than others as ones that
Speaker 1: they had a maybe a more difficult time wrapping their
Speaker 1: heads around, and want us to go over what we
Speaker 1: think about them or why we think that that these
Speaker 1: are kind of these have been debunked, or these are
Speaker 1: things that we should let go of and move forward
Speaker 1: with a different way of thinking. And so I like this,
Speaker 1: you know, we respond to our listeners and and you know,
Speaker 1: want to want to meet people where they are. So
Speaker 1: I want to go over a few more of these
Speaker 1: axioms of zombie leadership.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it sounds good. I'm at first when we went
Speaker 2: through this and talked about it, I was like, this
Speaker 2: is some good stuff in here, but I think you're like,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of dialogue that is around. Again, what
Speaker 2: are the things that we have maybe always subscribed to
Speaker 2: that we need to second guess and really talk through
Speaker 2: and figure out? And then what are the things that
Speaker 2: we know for a fact are going to continue to
Speaker 2: be real elements of leadership you know, always maybe or
Speaker 2: at least much much longer term.
Speaker 1: Right. And you know, because you know, this show isn't scripted,
Speaker 1: and we don't like kind of go over bullet points
Speaker 1: in advance of like Okay, you're going to say this,
Speaker 1: and then I'm going to say this. We just kind
Speaker 1: of discuss the topic based on our own thoughts about it,
Speaker 1: you know. The this this was one of those episodes
Speaker 1: last Monday where in my mind what I thought the
Speaker 1: conversation was going to be about or how engaging it
Speaker 1: was going to be was like yet, you know, one level,
Speaker 1: but I think it was higher than what I thought
Speaker 1: it was going to be. I think we there was
Speaker 1: more to discuss than what I thought there was to
Speaker 1: discuss when I when I initially thought let's talk about
Speaker 1: this thing, and so we never that happens and I
Speaker 1: feel like I wish we had more time to talk
Speaker 1: about this, that I think it's a good idea to
Speaker 1: go back and revisit it again. The first one of
Speaker 1: these axioms I want to talk about is this idea
Speaker 1: that there are specific qualities that all great leaders have.
Speaker 1: And you know that if you can look back at
Speaker 1: over time and and you know, take the leaders. I mean,
Speaker 1: if if you're listening to the Hacking leadership a long time,
Speaker 1: you'll remember from maybe twenty nineteen, we did our you know,
Speaker 1: the list of the ten best leaders of all time
Speaker 1: throughout the generations. Right, So going back all the way
Speaker 1: in time to today and looking at how those leaders
Speaker 1: have changed, Well, did they share some qualities with each other? Probably?
Speaker 1: But does that mean that there are particular qualities that
Speaker 1: all great leaders have? And the examples given by this
Speaker 1: by this article are things like intelligence and charisma, And
Speaker 1: on the surface, you know, I might think, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's accurate. If I look at the leaders that
Speaker 1: I think are good leaders that I've ported to over
Speaker 1: the years, I can't say that any of them weren't intelligent,
Speaker 1: weren't intelligent, and weren't charismatic, right, So like so to me,
Speaker 1: the kind of knee jerk response would be to say, yes,
Speaker 1: that sounds accurate. There are particular qualities that all great
Speaker 1: leaders have, but that's not necessarily the case. What do
Speaker 1: you think about this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I agree. I think that there's like I
Speaker 2: think there are elements that are really easy to overlap.
Speaker 2: Like I really think that there are things that you
Speaker 2: think about like leaders in your life, And I like
Speaker 2: to ask this question of leaders around like, hey, who's
Speaker 2: you know, who do you look at do you believes
Speaker 2: like been the best mentor for you or one of
Speaker 2: the best leaders in your life? And then why? And
Speaker 2: then what you find out is there's a ton of
Speaker 2: things that overlap. But I think for me, a lot
Speaker 2: of that overlap is the true kind of pillars of
Speaker 2: leadership and like kind of that you know that whether
Speaker 2: not just integrity, not just honesty, a true passion and
Speaker 2: care for the individual, but also someone who is willing
Speaker 2: to challenge them, uh to set the bar higher or
Speaker 2: to help them understand what they're capable of. But then
Speaker 2: I also think though to your point, like you know,
Speaker 2: we say things like intelligence, like myers they're they're super smart. Well,
Speaker 2: how do you measure that what's subjective about that? Like
Speaker 2: what is are they? Are they smart on a test?
Speaker 2: Are they smart in IQ? Are they smart in EQ?
Speaker 2: Are they smart because they're subject matter experts of the
Speaker 2: thing that you're doing and they can help you and
Speaker 2: you know, and and and show you the ways of
Speaker 2: doing doing the things that you want to get done.
Speaker 2: Like I just I think that there are again there
Speaker 2: are pieces of this that are really really clear and
Speaker 2: and I don't know that they change much. But then
Speaker 2: there are things that we have to say, well, is
Speaker 2: being the smartest person the best leader? And has that
Speaker 2: changed over time? And have we learned from the fact that,
Speaker 2: like you know, for a long time, you take your
Speaker 2: best individual contributor, the person who knew the most about
Speaker 2: the thing or the system or the process or whatever
Speaker 2: it is, and then you make them the leader. And
Speaker 2: then most of the time or some of the time,
Speaker 2: they get really frustrated with people that don't do it
Speaker 2: as well as they do, they don't do the way
Speaker 2: that they did it right, like like they So again
Speaker 2: we say that it's about intelligence or or understanding or knowledge,
Speaker 2: and we say that that that world makes sense. Yes, leaders, Yeah,
Speaker 2: that be knowledgeable, that's a good thing, But what's the context,
Speaker 2: what's the element of this? Has have we seen it
Speaker 2: actually have a positive impact on leadership or do we
Speaker 2: have a lot of examples where that has not worked
Speaker 2: out in the way that you would expect it to
Speaker 2: work out when we tie you know, a leader to
Speaker 2: just you know, the the nomenclature or the word that
Speaker 2: we think that they are not realizing that how they
Speaker 2: apply what that is to people is a larger factor, right,
Speaker 2: And I.
Speaker 1: Look at it in the context of you know, you
Speaker 1: talk about your three pillars of leadership, right, vision, clarity,
Speaker 1: and support, And you mentioned it briefly at the beginning
Speaker 1: here about the things that you look for from leaders
Speaker 1: and and the things that you look for from leaders
Speaker 1: they aren't they aren't character traits. They're actions like vision,
Speaker 1: clarity and support are actions not character traits. Right there there,
Speaker 1: you could find two people, one that you might consider
Speaker 1: incredibly intelligent and one that you might consider not as intelligent,
Speaker 1: and and they both technically have the ability to provide
Speaker 1: a vision, to provide clarity, and to provide support. That
Speaker 1: that the things that you're looking for leaders to deliver on,
Speaker 1: they they don't necessarily have to rely on a particular
Speaker 1: trait they have to rely on a on an ability
Speaker 1: to do certain actions and deliver certain things. But but
Speaker 1: there are so many different traits that you could over
Speaker 1: or under index on that to try to define this
Speaker 1: as there are there's even one trait that you could
Speaker 1: say in order to be a great leader, you have
Speaker 1: to have this thing. I don't think there is. I
Speaker 1: don't think there is. I think there's there's there's a
Speaker 1: There are enough options out there that you could be
Speaker 1: that you could have in terms of traits to where
Speaker 1: there there's a the then diagram of it is huge.
Speaker 1: And as long as you're able to deliver on certain things,
Speaker 1: then that makes you a good leader, not you know
Speaker 1: whether you have a specific trait, because I'll tell you
Speaker 1: I know some pretty intelligent people who couldn't lead a
Speaker 1: team to save their lives. Yeah, exactly. You know like that,
Speaker 1: you can't you can't make it a causal relationship, because
Speaker 1: then that's when you start to fall into the trap
Speaker 1: of promoting the wrong people, because you're promoting people based
Speaker 1: on a character trait and not based on an ability
Speaker 1: to deliver certain outcomes or do certain actions. And so
Speaker 1: I think this, I like this idea of kind of
Speaker 1: decoupling the two. That there are certain character traits that
Speaker 1: I think think are desirable, they're desirable to have. But
Speaker 1: but to to say to somebody that they can't be
Speaker 1: a great leader because they don't over index on this,
Speaker 1: or to assume they're going to be a great leader
Speaker 1: because they do over index on it, that's when you
Speaker 1: fall into a trap. As opposed to making the goal
Speaker 1: or the focus on a particular set of outcomes and actions,
Speaker 1: as opposed to as opposed to character traits.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm I'm a fan too. Have we looked at
Speaker 2: even like larger leadership assessments and kind of you know,
Speaker 2: Myers Briggs and a lot of the ones where it's
Speaker 2: like a whole lot of factor's, a whole lot of questions,
Speaker 2: a whole lot of like how do you see who
Speaker 2: you are and how you lead and what you do?
Speaker 2: And then and then it kind of like accepting that
Speaker 2: as who you are as a leader, and then what
Speaker 2: are the things that you can do well and what
Speaker 2: are the things that you have to be conscious of
Speaker 2: or work on or surround yourself with other people who
Speaker 2: have those types of strengths. Like I think to me
Speaker 2: that that is the best way to allow people to
Speaker 2: number one, be themselves, but the number two not subscribe
Speaker 2: to kind of these terms or just you know, like
Speaker 2: we have to like here's the five you know, to
Speaker 2: your point, here's a five characteristics that we must have
Speaker 2: in a leader. Well, okay, I mean I could probably
Speaker 2: name those characteristics in a negative way, or I could
Speaker 2: say that those things might be like overused to a degree.
Speaker 2: So if that's the case, and it's more about I
Speaker 2: think the impact you want to have on the team.
Speaker 2: We're looking for a leader who does these things. You
Speaker 2: motivate people, you inspire people, you have a passion for development,
Speaker 2: like things that you do as a leader to help
Speaker 2: your team move forward and progress and get better, versus
Speaker 2: simply saying these are things that must be in your leadership.
Speaker 2: Like I think that I think the big ones will
Speaker 2: always be there. But I think that like the true
Speaker 2: thinking through and defining the impact you want to have
Speaker 2: versus maybe the subjective opinion of how these things show
Speaker 2: up in you. I think to me, that's a better
Speaker 2: move looking forward when it comes to like thinking about
Speaker 2: assessing and hiring leaders, right.
Speaker 1: And it also goes back to what the team needs
Speaker 1: also and so like, if I look at just the
Speaker 1: examples given by this article of intelligence and charisma, If
Speaker 1: I'm looking for a leader to lead a team of
Speaker 1: engineers who who work you know, kind of really siloed
Speaker 1: or you know, they do a lot of work by
Speaker 1: themselves and they have to get together and present, but
Speaker 1: they but they do a lot of their work individually,
Speaker 1: that group of people might value intelligence a lot more
Speaker 1: than they value charisma out of a leader they they
Speaker 1: might have, They might they might not be very charismatic themselves,
Speaker 1: and based on the chosen profession they have, and therefore
Speaker 1: a leader coming in who over indexes on the charisma
Speaker 1: part might be seen as almost an outsider, like I'm
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if I trust this person to follow
Speaker 1: them like they don't. They don't remind me of me.
Speaker 1: And and I think it's important for for for people,
Speaker 1: for company leaders, when making promoting and hiring decisions to
Speaker 1: look at what the team needs in the moment, not
Speaker 1: just you know, kind of trying to find to find
Speaker 1: something that's universal that you can say on paper good,
Speaker 1: because that's a that's a way to potentially get the
Speaker 1: wrong person the next axium. I want to discuss is
Speaker 1: this idea that we all know a great leader when
Speaker 1: we see one, and that there's you know, consensus that
Speaker 1: some leaders are better than others. Like if you could
Speaker 1: look at two people both in leadership roles and say
Speaker 1: which one of these people are better? You could watch them,
Speaker 1: watch them interact with people for a few days or
Speaker 1: a week, and that everybody would would agree at the
Speaker 1: end which one of these people was the better leader
Speaker 1: than the other. And I think that that this is
Speaker 1: one of those things that seems accurate to me, Like, like,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't you be able to just watch somebody watch
Speaker 1: two different people over the course of a week interacting
Speaker 1: with their teams, trying to accomplish things, trying to get
Speaker 1: things done, and be able to say at the end
Speaker 1: of it, yeah, this person was clearly a better or
Speaker 1: a more effective leader than this person. And the problem
Speaker 1: with this is that there isn't consensus. They're like because
Speaker 1: every every not every only is every person different in
Speaker 1: terms of what they're looking for, but organizations look for
Speaker 1: different things at different times, and so consensus is only
Speaker 1: produced if you if you give privilege to one particular
Speaker 1: perspective over another. And in some organizations one perspective is
Speaker 1: more valued and in another in other organizations, another perspective
Speaker 1: is more valued. And those may change the following year
Speaker 1: or the following quarter, and that might change what you
Speaker 1: need in terms of the leader you're looking for. And
Speaker 1: so this this idea that there's this universal consensus on
Speaker 1: how to define this what a great leader is based
Speaker 1: on you know, being able to just watch them act.
Speaker 1: That's that's the problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I I agree, and I think not only
Speaker 2: just the problem, but it's it's to your points around
Speaker 2: like the constant evolution of what's needed, right, you know,
Speaker 2: there are I think in my career and I think,
Speaker 2: what the leaders that I've had, the mentors that I've had,
Speaker 2: and I've been very fortunate to have a vast majority
Speaker 2: of them be really really good for me. And again
Speaker 2: even the ones I would say is like, probably not
Speaker 2: the greatest leader. I learned and they taught me lessons
Speaker 2: about certain things, maybe not intentionally, but hey, that's how
Speaker 2: it goes.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you learned what you wouldn't tolerate out of a leader,
Speaker 1: and when you start seeing the writing on the wall,
Speaker 1: it's time to it's time to leave teams or leave companies.
Speaker 1: Earlier rather than later.
Speaker 2: Exactly right, Yes, it's so. But I think that having
Speaker 2: that over time, I could think of leaders that I
Speaker 2: was like, you know, they were the absolute right leader
Speaker 2: for that moment. They were they were exactly what was
Speaker 2: needed in that moment for the work that had to
Speaker 2: be done and the things we were looking to accomplish.
Speaker 2: And then I would fast forward, maybe a couple of
Speaker 2: years later, and it's like similar work, but things are
Speaker 2: different now. There's there's a different level of priority. Maybe
Speaker 2: it's a different level of urgency. Maybe there's more complexity
Speaker 2: to the business that you know didn't exist the couple
Speaker 2: of years before, and that now is requiring a different
Speaker 2: type of leader. And again not that the other one,
Speaker 2: the first one would be a bad leader all of
Speaker 2: a sudden. They just may have had a hard time
Speaker 2: evolving or changing to what was needed today or during
Speaker 2: that time period. And I think that's that's where things
Speaker 2: like learning, agility, and capability, like that's where those things
Speaker 2: actually start to take on more of a need in
Speaker 2: leadership than maybe what the old you know, you know,
Speaker 2: things of that were of value were then, Like you
Speaker 2: still need to be you still have integrity, you still
Speaker 2: need to be honest with people. You need to have,
Speaker 2: you know, a passion for the work. Still need to
Speaker 2: be a compassionate person. But now the ability to scale
Speaker 2: your self and to develop yourself and to be able
Speaker 2: to meet the moments is a very different thing as
Speaker 2: a result of the ever evolving work and you know,
Speaker 2: the different generations and the different workforce that is requiring
Speaker 2: something different of leaders. And I think that's why it's
Speaker 2: really hard to say, like, you know, just say this,
Speaker 2: you know, this is a great leader subjectively, and then
Speaker 2: now we move that leader to a different place, a
Speaker 2: different company, different industry, or just fast forward into the future,
Speaker 2: we might not have that same opinion because other things
Speaker 2: around them have changed and adjusted, and maybe that's something
Speaker 2: that they are struggling with.
Speaker 1: Right, So I look at I'm not going to name
Speaker 1: any companies here because I don't want to. I don't
Speaker 1: want to have it sound make it potentially accidentally sound
Speaker 1: like I'm thinking that one is better than the other. Right,
Speaker 1: But but if everybody listening just kind of thinks about it,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you could think of companies where where the
Speaker 1: culture of that organization is very top down hierarchical. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a leader and then that person as a leader,
Speaker 1: and that person as a leader, and there's a you know,
Speaker 1: like you're not supposed to go above your leader's head
Speaker 1: to somebody else. You're supposed to get the problem solved
Speaker 1: on your team and then have it move up. And
Speaker 1: and then there are other organizations where it's much more,
Speaker 1: much more of a flattened organization, right where you have
Speaker 1: where people where individual relationships are encouraged amongst all layers
Speaker 1: or levels of the organization, where the CEO says I
Speaker 1: have an open door policy and they actually mean it,
Speaker 1: you know, like that those kind of things, and and
Speaker 1: you know, one one isn't necessarily better than the other.
Speaker 1: I might have one that I think is better than
Speaker 1: the other for me, like what I would thrive in
Speaker 1: versus what I wouldn't thrive in. But I promise you'll
Speaker 1: find employees in both types of organizations who are thriving
Speaker 1: and who like that particular way. And so to try
Speaker 1: to say that. But but if you took a leader
Speaker 1: in one of those organizations and stuck them in the
Speaker 1: other kind of organization, it's likely that leader would fail.
Speaker 1: It's likely a leader who is used to a flattened
Speaker 1: kind of spiderwebed organization where everybody talks to everybody that
Speaker 1: if you put them in one that is hierarchical, they
Speaker 1: would not thrive. They would eventually leave because they would
Speaker 1: if they're if they're a great leader, they try to
Speaker 1: change the system, right and if they and if they couldn't,
Speaker 1: they would leave. And then vice versa. Take a person
Speaker 1: who's very top down hierarchical and put them in an
Speaker 1: organization where they're expected to have a more democratic style
Speaker 1: of leadership, right, a more you know kind of let's
Speaker 1: talk to everybody, Let's get everybody's consensus. Let's let's get
Speaker 1: intoinion about somebody, not just prescribe something to them that
Speaker 1: they might have a very difficult time kind of summoning
Speaker 1: that in them if they've made a career for themselves
Speaker 1: in the other way. And again it's not that one's
Speaker 1: better than the other. It's that the organization has a
Speaker 1: culture and that that that culture privileges certain perspectives over others.
Speaker 1: But what's working for the organization is really objective. Right
Speaker 1: Are the is the is the turnover? Low? Is the engagement? High?
Speaker 1: Are the are the results there? If if it's a
Speaker 1: public organization, is the share price up, like those are
Speaker 1: things that you look at and if those things are
Speaker 1: all there, then it's really difficult to argue that the
Speaker 1: type of leadership there is not good or is the
Speaker 1: wrong type of leadership. Uh. And so again this idea
Speaker 1: that you can look at a leader and say that's
Speaker 1: a good leader or this is not a good leader.
Speaker 1: I don't like that because you could, you could, you
Speaker 1: could take the fish out of water, so to speak,
Speaker 1: and they would they would no longer seem like a
Speaker 1: good leader.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And with that and brings us to this episodes
Speaker 2: one minute hack, but worse for our sponsors.
Speaker 1: All right, for this episode is one minute hack. Heres
Speaker 1: want you to do. Go to the link in the
Speaker 1: podcast description and click on it, and it will show
Speaker 1: you a picture, a screenshot that I took of this chart,
Speaker 1: this table of axioms of zombie leadership, and you can
Speaker 1: read through them. There's there's seven or eight of them,
Speaker 1: and and read through them from this from the from
Speaker 1: the perspective of thinking about what what are kind of
Speaker 1: things that you've brought with you that are leading you
Speaker 1: to believe that these things are true? When an actuality
Speaker 1: they aren't an actuality. There there's information out there that
Speaker 1: should be able to tell you that this is not
Speaker 1: true anymore, and you should let go of it. If
Speaker 1: you're a leader, and especially if you're one that makes
Speaker 1: hiring decisions, these are very very important to discard because
Speaker 1: they will they will lead you to make poor hiring
Speaker 1: decisions and promoting decisions if you are looking for the
Speaker 1: wrong things in a person, or if you're kind of
Speaker 1: boxing yourself into a certain thought process or or mental
Speaker 1: model when making these decisions versus kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: opening it up and broadening your respective a little bit
Speaker 1: on what the potential is versus what the what the
Speaker 1: potential isn't when when making these decisions. So go through them,
Speaker 1: look at them, kind of look at yourself in the
Speaker 1: mirror little bit, and think about the ones that you've
Speaker 1: kind of brought with you, because we all do it.
Speaker 1: We absolutely all have brought these things with us because
Speaker 1: of our own lived experiences. And they're all different, and
Speaker 1: some of them are far like there are some that
Speaker 1: I looked at and went, that's ridiculous, I don't think
Speaker 1: that's a problem anymore. And there are somewhere I looked
Speaker 1: at and went, why do they think think this isn't true.
Speaker 1: That's clearly still true, and then we discuss it and go, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I can see why that isn't true anymore. So we
Speaker 1: all have our own differences that lead us to believe
Speaker 1: certain things. And some of these things are going to
Speaker 1: be much easier to let go of than others, but
Speaker 1: that read through it, and the ones that are tougher
Speaker 1: to let go of you put your focus on your
Speaker 1: energy there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I like that. I think that it's a it's
Speaker 2: so true, like these are things. There are plenty of
Speaker 2: things that I've subscribed to over the years, plenty of sayings,
Speaker 2: plenties of approaches, like one of the one of the
Speaker 2: most recent ones, and I love this one is like
Speaker 2: I tend to say sae like meeting people where they're at.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: It was like, yeah, meet somebody where they're at. You're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that makes sense, meaning where they're at. Well, well,
Speaker 2: now what if you have two people that are lost right.
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Like just just a funny way to think about that.
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, well, like when you when you say
Speaker 2: you want to meet somebody where they're at, if they
Speaker 2: are so far from where they need to be or
Speaker 2: they are so far from the expectation. You're going to
Speaker 2: spend a lot of time doing work to get someone
Speaker 2: to just the minimum expectation, and that's not actually helpful
Speaker 2: at all. Like there there has to be a line
Speaker 2: there to say, like, well, yeah, while in theory, I
Speaker 2: want to meet you where you're at, where you have
Speaker 2: to be is very close to where you're supposed to be,
Speaker 2: because if you're if if you're nowhere near where you're
Speaker 2: supposed to be, well, now both of us are lost
Speaker 2: and we're both spending time in a space that's not
Speaker 2: helpful in moving things forward or progressing. And so I
Speaker 2: just like that idea because it's such a it's it's
Speaker 2: such an easy term to say, it's something that I've
Speaker 2: said a million times. But if you don't really understand
Speaker 2: what you're saying or in the context of how you're
Speaker 2: doing it or what you're talking about, it can it
Speaker 2: can definitely lead to a place where you're just not
Speaker 2: going to make any progress.
Speaker 1: Right, And this is how these things are created. This
Speaker 1: is this is how these axioms start. Right. They start
Speaker 1: with someone saying something that sounds good or looks good
Speaker 1: on paper, but when picked apart or dug into it's
Speaker 1: clear that it only applies in certain circumstances, not in
Speaker 1: every circumstance, And so it becomes a go to you know,
Speaker 1: something you say to somebody when you're trying to get
Speaker 1: them to do a good job, when you're trying if
Speaker 1: you're a leader of leaders and you're trying to get
Speaker 1: somebody to be a better leader, and you use these
Speaker 1: things and you say these things and we don't realize
Speaker 1: that they could be doing it could be doing more
Speaker 1: damage than good to say something to a person and
Speaker 1: and just hope it's the SoundBite that works. Right like
Speaker 1: the there's more context is needed, and more actual leadership
Speaker 1: training and development is needed, not just something that feels
Speaker 1: good or looks good as a slogan.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and what that bringsists at the end of this episode,
Speaker 2: this is hacking leadership on the rene.
Speaker 1: So and I'm Chris, and we'll talk to you all
Speaker 1: next time.