How to Win the Talent Wars with Dr. John Dentico

How are you leveraging the difference between strategic thinking and strategic planning in creating your own leadership network, creating trust amongst those that you lead, and taking the actions that are the heart and soul of your leadership? With our guest, Dr. John Bennigo, we are digging deep into all of that, along with the need for you to use foresight to create agility and proactive leadership practices you need to put into place to manufacture mutual trust, which is the real measure of an organization's effectiveness and your success as a leader. Welcome, welcome, welcome to Shedding the Corporate Bitch, the podcast that transforms female corporate executives into powerhouse leaders by showing them how to shed the challenges and overwhelm, along with any fear, insecurity, self-doubt, and negativity holding them back. I'm your host, Bernadette Boas of Ball of Fire Coaching, bringing you powerhouse discussions each week to share tips, advice, and sometimes tough love so you create the riches in your work and life you deserve. John, it's so good to have you. Thank you so much for being part of the show.

Thanks so much. It's great to be here.

Yeah, it's great to have you. And I'm very, very curious because the subject matter that you focus on and that you work in is— well, you use the word volatile, but is very vast and can be very challenging for many leaders. So, let's start with when you say to win the talent war, what exactly is it that you're referring to?

Well, what I'm referring to is creating an environment where, built on mutual trust, and collaboration where people come to do their best work every single day. That's to me is what people are searching for, an alignment, if you will, of values. And the value of, for example, mutual trust is so, so very important. It's, you know, there's this old saying, you know, the only sure things in life are death and taxes. And there's actually a third one. And the third one is this, that in the world of organizational dynamics, the level of effectiveness of an organization, the ability of that organization to do what they say they can do, is directly related to the level of mutual trust. The higher levels of mutual trust, the higher levels of effectiveness.

Okay, so let's break this down a little bit first. Why is it so challenging for managers/leaders, and maybe there's a difference between those two, because of a lack of any of the things that we're talking about, but why do you think it's so difficult to build mutual trust amongst your team and within an organization?

Well, there are several explanations. The one that I've been thinking about and have thought about for a long time is this notion of the structure of bureaucracy, which every organization today still uses as their structure. I mean, if any one of your listeners out there can point to an organizational chart, for example, well, welcome to bureaucracy because bureaucracy gave us organizational charts. What are they? Well, they're boxes.. And people fill those boxes and they're cogs in a wheel and they do that job. Okay. Bureaucracy's a machine. It just cranks stuff out all the time, right? Right. Where did it come from? You have to understand, I mean, get a little theoretical here, but just hang with me for a minute. Where did it come from? Well, it came from a sociologist named Max Weber in the early 1900s, a sociologist. Who basically wanted to create a more efficient way for people to work together. So that's how bureaucracy was born, when people were coming off the farms in the early 1900s during the Industrial Revolution and on their way into towns to find work. Okay, so where did he get— so you really gotta kind of go back— where did he get? Well, he got it from Freddy 2. Freddy 2, otherwise known as Frederick the Great of Prussia, who took a provincial government to a world power with reintroducing organization onto the battlefield. And what was that based on? Well, it was simple. The enlisted folks had to fear the sergeants, and the sergeants had to fear the officers. So here you have a system that's based on fear. And so when you try to do all these new wonderful things associated with building trust, what you have is this clash of cultures. So bureaucracy is a background assumption. It's always there. And to give you an example of a background assumption, let's say you wanted to go out tomorrow and have a picnic. Okay? I say 10 o'clock in the morning. Well, you have a reasonable assurance that the sun is going to come up. So you'll have daylight so you can have your picnic. Well, it's just there. That's a background assumption. And the background assumption of the way bureaucracy still manages organizations is this, again, clash of cultures when you're now trying to overlay it with a sense of trust. It's this continuous give and take and combat between these two basic strategies.

Right. But doesn't it just also come down to take away all the org chart boxes because there's got to be some means of structuring, organizing, like you said, efficiency. But doesn't it also come down to just an individual slash leaders like you said, the values, their core values, that they may have even kind of been brought up in this bureaucratic environment, but at the same time they decide, no, this is how I want to go about doing it.

Right.

And is it the fact that there aren't enough managers that are deciding that I don't necessarily have to follow the norm and I can ensure that my values, which is built on respect, mutual trust, collaboration, as you said, is then embodied in myself and my team?

It's a great question. This is how I would explain it. No organization, considering bureaucracy in the background, no organization can exist without the informal lines of communication. The real lines of communication between people in a workplace, for example, So you're right. Can they build mutual trust there? Yeah, they can. So what people have, and the reason I talk about bureaucracy is to make people understand that there has to be this way in which they can, bureaucracy, which really forms now a legal framework, it's more a legal framework. And the more trust-building, trust-focused perspectives of leadership can coexist side by side. I'll give you an example. Take any playing field, a hockey field, hockey rink, or a football field or a baseball field. All of these environments have strict lines. They have an environment, right? I mean, the hockey has a hockey rink, a baseball has a baseball diamond, a football has a football field, and they all have rules. All kinds of rules go on. Yet every day you can witness such immense creativity in each one of these areas. So in a sense, sense. You're not limited by what the field of play says. You're limited by your own, what Einstein referred to as the most powerful force on Earth, imagination. Imagination is simply the most powerful force on Earth. So if you can imagine how an environment should be and how you want to create an environment that people come to do their best work every day, It is possible to do that. I'll just add one more little piece. Einstein was asked, it's a great one-liner, how did you come up with the theory of relativity? And he said, oh, when I was 16 years of age, I imagined myself riding through the universe on a moonbeam. Now, my imagination hasn't caught up to that yet. I mean, I'm just really not there. Working on it, but I'm just not there. So that's what I would say. It's— you're right, within the purview of each leader and manager, which I make a separation, I make a distinction between leaders and managers. And if you'd like, I could talk a little bit about that.

Go for it, because I do the same. But yes, definitely share your view on both.

Leadership and management are complementary processes. Okay. The outputs, they actually are process that outputs. Leadership, I'm gonna put three things together. Leadership, strategic thinking, and effectiveness.

Ah, okay.

One side of the dynamic. On the other side is management, strategic planning, and efficiency. Leadership is about effectiveness. Management is about efficiency. They are two sides of the same coin. They are complementary to one another. An example might be, you know, systems in organizations may be very efficient, but they may not be giving us the information or the output we need in order to make good decisions. Now, sometimes, and many times what happens is we Band-Aid that system. Oh yeah, we'll just upgrade it a little bit. Okay, fine. Let's do that. Well, it worked, but not really that much. And so there comes a time when you have to, as I like to say, take out a clean piece of paper. Say, listen, we can't Band-Aid this thing anymore. We have to make some really significant changes. The purpose of leadership, the purpose of leadership, which you don't hear many people talk about, is transforming real or substantive change. That's the job of leadership.

But wouldn't people argue that on the efficiency side, the management efficiency side, that side is always looking for changes and improvements and ways to do things differently? So, do they not get any credit for the transformational change?

Well, The problem is manager does make change, but it's incremental change. It's small change. It tweaks. The process of management doesn't really lend itself to transforming change, to big change. You have to stop trying to manage big problems away, and you have to switch your mindset to say, look, we need a leadership group here. That dives in, and here's where strategic planning comes in, does a deep dive, blue sky, into what the real issues are, what's really going on. Let's, if I can say, let's strip the organization back, let's tear off the wallpaper, let's get off the old paint off the walls, and let's start from the beginning and take a look at this system without any particular prejudices, if I could use that term, to what things are right now. That's strategic thinking. That's where you get into— you don't have this management thing, resource allocation, hanging over your head. Get rid of that. Okay, get rid of that.

Yeah. So could you look at it also as leadership is strategic, whereas management is tactical?

Yeah, that's, that's not a bad way of looking at it. For example, let's say a group of, in an organization creates a leadership group and they do some strategic thinking and they say, hey, you know what? These are the threats and the risks to the organization. Okay? These are the threats and risks. We really gotta address this. And they go through the whole strategic thinking process and they get on the, the backside of that and they say, okay, we've identified gaps. Here's the gaps between our, this is the issue. Here's the strengths that we have. Here's the weaknesses that we have. We need to close this gap. And, oh, wait a minute, I know. Let's give that to the strategic planners. Now the strategic planners say, okay, we can allocate resources to create a training program, to buy a new IT system, to reinvigorate a mentoring program, for example, different things like that. When you get into the processes of them working together, you find that it becomes a lot easier for people to say, you know, we're about this, we're about leadership and real change, and then we're gonna feed that into the strategic planning process. They're the resource allocators. They're the ones who say, well, in order to do this, it's gonna cost so much money. Let me see how we can find the money to do that.

Right.

After, of course, a prioritization has occurred where you say, well, we gotta do this one first. This is gonna get us some real mileage here. That kind of a thing.

Right. Now, would you also say that management and leadership are also at different levels of growth and evolution in the role that someone plays? Like, one, a manager may be responsible for some processes and functions and whatnot, but they don't necessarily really lead and really are people-focused and are really transformational and really kind of focused on, you know, the vision. Managers are more, like I said, tactical. They're more— they're not as elevated in the soft skill, people side, transformative side.

Right.

So is there a layering?

That's a really good question. Let me see if I can back up just for a second. Most of the leadership and management trainings I have to back the car up another half mile. That's right. Okay. I make a differentiation between a leader and leadership. I make a differentiation between a person being a leader and the ability to do leadership, especially in the training world, right? Most of the leadership training in my opinion, is leader training. We train, we train, we talk about, believe it or not, the 57 traits of a leader. I bumped into a website one day, said 57 traits of a leader. I thought, oh my God, I'm doomed. I only have 46. You know, I mean, that kind of a thing. Or, you know, charisma. Oh God, you know, charismatic leader. The answer is, well, they may very well be charismatic. The question is, who do you trust?

Yeah.

So, you know, that kind of thing. So I make a differentiation between the leader and leadership and where most people are concerned about the who. And I think your question points to the who.

It does.

It does. I, John D'Antico, am concerned with the what, why, and how. Okay? I'm on the other side of the dynamic. I'm on the practice side of the dynamic. So in other words, You can be a leader, you can be a manager. It doesn't matter to me. I'm going to teach you the processes you need to use as a leader and as a manager. They're different processes. They're different. And once you learn the process, can a leader do management? Yeah, they can.

Yeah.

Can a manager do leadership? Yeah, they can. You know, it's just, it's just understanding the process. It's sort of like I know I listened to one of your previous podcasts, and I understand you're a pickleballer. Are you a pickleballer?

I am.

Okay, well, it's something I'm about to take up, as a matter of fact. Yay!

Yay!

More pickleball. Okay, suppose, okay, suppose you were invited to a pro-am tournament, okay, with one of the best women players there is. And they say to you, look, I'm gonna make you an offer. I'm gonna make you two offers, okay? Here's the first offer. First offer is I'm gonna send you every video I have, every book that I've got, videos you haven't seen. I'm gonna send them all to you. And before we actually play our tournament in a month, I'm gonna watch as many as you want, read all the books you want. That's the first offer. Then the pro says, here's what we're gonna do. Every Tuesday and Thursday for the next month, you and I are going to go play doubles, and we're going to get on the court and we're going to play pickleball. And I'm going to be there, I'm going to coach you. If you have any questions, I'll answer any questions. So in a month, when we show up for the Pro-Am tournament, we'll have played 8 times together. We've really got to know each other and trust each other. Okay, it's a learn-by-doing methodology.

Yes.

That's where I sit. I sit on the learn-by-doing side of the equation.

Yeah.

If I can teach you the process, it doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter if you are a manager or a leader. You understand the process and you can switch from one side to the other. That's kind of a way of looking at it.

I agree. And I do the latter, by the way.

Oh, you should see when you tell that to golfers, you know, and I ask them who they're, oh, well, Jordan Spaeth. Oh, well, Jordan calls you up and says, "Let's go play some rounds." You know, people are dancing in the aisles. But it's kind of a funny way to get to the point that experience is without a doubt the best way to learn. Doing it is what it's all about.

Doing, doing, doing. Absolutely. I absolutely agree with you. Okay, so you've mentioned trust multiple times, and you know, and it is the foundation, right? It is the foundation, wouldn't you agree? To basically everything, relationships, everything, leadership, success. So, how do you help maybe even a very dysfunctional team? How do you help them build trust amongst each other?

Well, the first thing I would do, trust, when you hear a lot of people talk about trust, it's not some sort of magical a golden aura that sits about our heads. You know, we go, oh, you know, I feel so much trust in the air. Oh my God, it's amazing. It's just incredible. No, it doesn't happen that way.

No, right?

Mutual trust. And let me explain what mutual trust is first, because that's a little bit different.

Oh, that's good. Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

We know that people working for a particular leader, let's say, needs to trust that leader. Okay? You could say politics is based on that whole concept. We need to trust the leader. But it's also important for the leader to trust the people. Okay? So it's more than a two-way street here. Okay? So the leader has to trust the people are gonna do what they need to do to function properly. Okay? Mutual trust. Is when not only the leader is trusted by the people and he trusts the people, but when the people trust one another. That's right. That's mutual trust. Mutual trust. So what mutual trust can be manufactured. You can make mutual trust.

Well, before you go there, let me just— let me make a note of that. You can make— do you find that there's more that the leader trusts their people or the people trust their leader?

I think it's relative. I think it's relative to the health of the group in the sense that, you know, there's times when I've seen people completely trust the leader, right? And the leader trusts them. They're in a mutual relationship.

Right.

Okay. And many times, you know, there's this old adage that people don't leave companies, they leave their bosses. I'm sure you've heard that before, right? So that would indicate, of course, that they don't trust this particular individual.

Right.

Okay. So I think they're reflective of each other. They're reflective of each other. And it's sad when you see that. I mean, when I was— when I was 22 years old and a brand new naval officer in the United States Navy, the thing that I learned was that trust was the fuel that drove everything. If you don't have it, you're dead. You're not going anywhere. You're not getting anything done, right? And as much as it pertains to the military, it pertains even more to organizations.

Sure. Well, thank you for your service, by the way.

It was an honor and a privilege to serve.

Okay, so now getting back to making trust, we're gonna make trust, okay?

We're gonna make it. It's almost like an ice cream maker. No, but not really, okay? So here's a small example, okay? Let's say, Bernadette, I work for you, okay? That's our little scenario. And you say to me, John, you know that report you owe me, you know, next week on the financial report? I said, well, yeah, I know. Yeah, I got it. She said, could you have that to me, say Tuesday, 10 o'clock? Would that be all right? Oh yeah, no problem. Tuesday, 9:45, I walk through the door, I have the report in hand, I say, Bernadette, Here you go. You kind of scan through it, look at it and go, hey, this looks great. This is exactly what I wanted. You and I have built a little trust. Okay? Let's say this goes on for a year and a half. Okay? And every time you ask for something, Johnny's on the spot. Here it is. And now over a course of time, we've built trust. We've built mutual trust. Mutual trust. Comes from mutual practice and mutual engagement. You have to be there. Now, I have here— I'm going to look down here because I want to just talk about this just for a second. I have the— what I consider to be the best definition of trust I've ever seen comes from Michael Josephson at the Josephson Institute of Ethics in Santa Monica, California. And I wrote to Michael and asked him if I could use it in my book, and he was very gracious and said, "Hey, go for it." So here's the definition of trust. First, it involves integrity, okay? Consistency among words, actions, and beliefs, okay? The second one is honesty. More than telling the truth, it means acting non-deceptively. With candor and forthrightness. The third one is promise keeping, right? You want that report at 10 o'clock? I got it for you.

Okay, right.

Keeping one's commitments. And here's a very interesting one: loyalty. More than personal loyalty, but loyalty to the overall mission of the organization and the public at large.

Love that.

Yeah, it's the best definition of leadership I've ever seen. And it has 4 parts and you put them all together and you have a real sense for what trust is.

Yeah.

What you're trying to achieve within trust.

So of those, I mean, of those things though, again, it doesn't seem like it should be difficult, you know, to want to have loyalty, to engage with one another with respect. Keep your promises. They're core values that I guess you would hope that individuals live by, but I guess there are breaks in it, right?

Well, consider this. Consider the pressure placed on leaders and managers to make their numbers. In fact, Jack Welch used to talk about this all the time. There's a tremendous pressure on people to do what needs to be done to remain competitive even though it may be a misguided idea at the time. People want to, hey, look, we've gotta make this commitment. We've got to be there for our customers and clients. And oh, by the way, you're expected to clear at least an 11 or 12% profit for this quarter. So, you know, people feel these pressures, leaders, managers feel these pressures on 'em all the time. And how they achieve it is really about building this much collaborative environment. A lot of times, I remember this clearly, people will do, they'll take charge of it. They'll say, okay, I got it. I'm gonna do this because if my head's gonna roll on this, then I'm gonna do it. Not realizing that the power to release the power of people together in a trusting environment is an overwhelming force. Overwhelming. I mean, I believe that if you can get a group of people, 25 or 30 people, maybe more, operating with a high sense of mutual trust, with a mission, a purpose, and a perspective working together, there is nothing they can't do.

It's true. Now, however, with all of that in its drumming up a lot of the things that I've been experiencing with clients over the last 3 or 4 months. But you also mentioned throughout this discussion communication, right? And you can have this vision, you can have this, you know, charter and these common goals laid out. However, if it's only kept within a smaller group of that 25 to 30 and not necessarily communicated out in such a way that people get on board with it, well then, isn't it all for naught?

I would agree. I would agree. There's, you know, the movie Oppenheimer just came out. Yeah, it's a bit of a big smash. There's a little story associated with that. I think it just kind of says it all. When they were building, when they were doing the nuclear reactor, the atomic experiments out in the desert, the mathematicians that they had hired were all compartmented. Okay, so in other words, mathematicians working on one piece were not allowed to talk to mathematicians on another, working on another particular project. Everybody was kept separate. It was all compartmentalized. But the results they were getting, the progress that they were making was not very good because people didn't understand the why of it all.

Ah, yes.

So Oppenheimer called everybody together and he said, Okay, we're gonna break protocol. I'm gonna tell you why we're doing this. We're here to end the war. We're gonna build the atomic bomb. And the productivity of all those people just jumped enormously.

Rocketed.

One of the things I like to talk about, one of the foundations for my own work is we are a why-driven species, W-H-Y. We want to know why we're doing something. It is so powerful. Simple, but powerful.

How often are you asked about that from your clients, about the fact that they want to hear the why and they just don't?

I would say you don't hear it that much, as much as I thought I would. People now are getting on board with the idea that they, hey, look, I'm gonna tell you why we're here, why we're here, why we're doing this. It's so incredibly important because once people understand the why, now look, they may disagree with you. They may say, well, really? I say, yeah, but at least I know why.

Yeah.

And they'll charge ahead. So I find that that is just so, so important. And I make it a point to tell people why. Why are we doing this? Okay, I'm gonna tell you exactly why we're doing this. Okay, and it comes from, it comes from an experience I had when I was 16 years of age in high school mathematics. Professor walks in, the teacher walks in one day, he says, good morning, turns you around on the board and starts f times 2 over the square root of 7. And I'm like, whoa, what is this? You know, I am lost. Can anybody tell me the big picture? Give me the big picture here because I, I'd like to know why we're studying this algebra stuff, right? So when I— I don't know, something in those days clicked in me.

Yeah.

And said, you know, if I ever get a chance to teach, if I ever get a chance to teach, the first thing I'm going to do is tell people why are we doing this, why it's important, that kind of a thing.

It's a great— it's a great question in so many aspects of life, is why. Yes, it's absolutely amazing. I want you to also share with us a little bit of a discussion on your book.

Okay.

And exactly, you know, what it covers and what's the why others should take a look at it and pick it up. I have the link here. It's tiny.cc/DrJohnDenicoBook.

Well, let's see. Boy, I have to kind of start at the beginning here. I have a doctorate in leadership studies from the University of San Diego, where I studied with arguably one of the best leadership theorists to walk the planet in the last 50 years. His name was Dr. Joseph Rost, and he wrote a book called Leadership for the 21st Century. Okay, it's an academic read, but it is one of the most incredibly well-thought-out and well-founded theoretical studies of leadership, in which he discovered that there were basically two ideas of leadership. One is the— what he called the industrial model of leadership, The leader gives us leadership, as opposed to post-industrial where people are engaged in a leadership dynamic. I have always been a DIY guy, do it yourself. I fix everything I can get my hands on— cars, washing machines. I'm a pretty good plumber. I'm not so good a carpenter. A pretty good electrician. Okay, I guess it just was part of my growing up. So when I wrote my book, the attitude I took towards it was that of an attorney. I knew I was going to go up against the traditional leadership development programs, which, as I described it already, were more about leader development, right? As opposed to, okay, now we've trained you. Can you do it? Can you go out there and do it? Which, can you actually practice leadership? So I had to take that attitude and write my book with that attitude and go from the beginning to the end with the focus of creating, if you will, DIY methodologies of how to do this. Okay. We tell people, okay, this is how it should be.

Right, right.

But how do you do it? And I wanted to go that mile on how you do it. It took 52 months to write the book, 4 years and 4 months, through several episodes of throwing it in the corner and say, I'm never touching that thing again. It was not a labor of love, but in the end, it was a duty I had to perform. It was something that I had to do. So the book covers 6 different ideas of that impact leadership, along with 7 how-to procedures. Dealing with culture, simulation, strategic thinking, a different framing, how to use framing, the 4 frames in communication, and created something that now developed into something else called a pull learning system as opposed to push learning. So I could talk a little bit, just a little bit about that. Blended learning. I'm sure you've heard of blended learning. Yeah, blended learning. Blended learning is good. But several elements of it are push, meaning we're pushing information onto people. What I tried to do, and now have updated it into what I refer to as the Throttle Up Accelerated Leadership Learning System, is a pull learning system. What I want to do is create the demand for knowledge on the part of the person. I want them to pull the information towards them. I want them to say, I need this, I want this, because the holy grail of learning is relevance. Relevance is the holy grail of learning. Does this mean anything to me?

Right. Do I can't— yes. Can I use it? Is it valuable? Yes.

Can I use it? Can I do something with it? I mean, yeah, that's the holy grail of learning. People don't wanna spend time learning You know, spurious kinds of things. They want to say, you know what, I can take that and turn it around and use it tomorrow. That is something I can do. And that's how I really focused my book.

Very nice. Very nice. And everyone, I want you to go to— you can go right to Amazon. And you can use the tiny link that we have is tiny.cc/ Dr. John Denico book. And can you share with us the full title?

Yes, it's called Throttle Up: How to Accelerate the Impact of 21st Century Leadership. And that to me, and I'll just leave you with this one other thought just to mention it. I talked about the greatest force on earth being imagination, but the greatest motivation on earth is meaning. People want to gain a sense of meaning from the things that they do. They want to matter. They want to be architects, the masters, if you will, of their own fate.

Sure.

And I believe that if— let's talk about winning the talent wars now. Let's just go back to the title just for a second. If you want to win the talent wars, you've got to create an environment where people can derive meaning for the things that they do.

Nice. Very nice. I love it, John. I love it. Love it. We went full circle on that. That was awesome. Thank you so much for being here. This has been a fabulous and fascinating conversation.

Great. I look forward to it. And thank you so, so very much for having me a guest on your, on your podcast.

Oh, you're so welcome. Thank you for being here. All right. That was a powerhouse of a conversation with John, Dr. John Denico. He took a different angle on what we typically talk about here when it comes to leadership. He gave us kind of some history and background of where organization structures, where leadership really stemmed from. And it actually was all stemmed around bureaucracies and how bureaucracies even today are really meant to lead with fear. You look at that org chart and there are all these boxes. Many of those boxes are filled with individuals that do lead from fear, fear of the titles, fear of the positions, fear of the hierarchy, so to speak. Then he just got into, as a result of that old school, thinking around leadership. He then discussed how true leadership is built on a foundation of mutual trust, not just trust, but mutual trust. And he discussed the difference even with that, meaning there's one way that you can have trust for someone and maybe they have trust for you. Maybe they don't. You really don't know. Maybe you don't even care. But then what he was really emphasizing is The success of an organization or even of a team when the leader fully trusts their people, but the people also fully trust the leader, and therefore there's no argument, discussion. There's no distrust in the fact that people will do their job. They'll show up. They'll follow through. They'll keep their promises. He even went into the 4 frames of communication, which I thought was very powerful. When it comes to mutual trust. Then he discussed the difference, but more the complement, between leadership and management. Leadership really being based on the foundation of focusing on the effectiveness of an individual, of a team, of the organization as a whole, whereas management really looks at efficiencies. I happened to ask, "Okay, so if one side is looking at effectiveness and strategic planning, and the other side being management is looking at efficiency and strategic thinking. Could we look at that as if leadership is strategic while management is more tactical? And there was some discussion in regards to that. And then we just basically got into talking points around just what it takes and how one can go about Building that trust, which is core, core, core to any success of a team, of a business, even the individuals, and not only at work but in life. So I hope you enjoyed that conversation. I would love to hear your comments or your questions out on LinkedIn. So feel free to go to @BernadetteBoas on LinkedIn and definitely leave some comments or any questions you might have for me or John. On any one of our social sites and on LinkedIn. All right. And I am thrilled that you were here with us this week and look forward to having you right back here next week for another episode of Shedding the Corporate Bitch. Bye everyone.