311. Humanizing Rules: Unveiling the Human Side of Compliance, with Christian Hunt

Welcome to episode 311 of the Brainy Business Understanding the Psychology of why People Buy. In today's episode, I'm excited to introduce you to Christian Hunt, author of Humanizing Rules. Ready? Let's get started.

You are listening to the Brainy Business podcast where we dig into the psychology of why people buy and help you incorporate behavioral economics into your business, making it more brain friendly. Now here's your your host, Melina Palmer.

Hello. Hello everyone. My name is Melina Palmer and I want to welcome you to the Brainy Business Podcast. In today's conversation I'm joined by Christian Hunt. Christian is the founder of Human Risk, a behavioral science led consulting and training firm specializing in ethics and compliance and the author of Humanizing Rules. He was formerly Managing Director head of Behavioral Science at ubs. He joined that firm in compliance and operational risk control, leading the function globally for UBS Asset Management. Before joining ubs, he was COO of the UK Prudential Regulation Authority, a subsidiary of the bank of England responsible for regulating financial services. We talk about financial services and risk a lot today, as well as transportation and so many other ways where rules come into play. I mean, is there anywhere where we aren't looking at rules these days? We have both written and unwritten rules and so much to guide our behaviors. What Christian specializes in, as you'll hear about today, is the human side of all that, both in writing the rules and adhering to them and why some people break them, nefariously or otherwise, how to predict it, all sorts of really fascinating stuff. I'm so excited to share it with you today. Really quickly, before we get into the conversation, I want to be sure know that there are links in the show, notes for everything including related past episodes, links to articles and books including Humanizing Rules and so much more. It's all within the app you're listening to and at the brainy business.com 311 now let's jump right in. Christian Hunt, welcome to the Brainy Business Podcast.

It's an absolute pleasure to be here. Melina. Thank you for having me.

Absolutely. I'm so excited to have you and return the to reciprocate we'll go with that instead of like returning the favor. But I have had the joy of being on your podcast and in the past and we recently met in person and did the book swap and all of that. And I will have introduced you a bit in the intro but for everyone who doesn't yet know you, can you share a little bit about who you are and your background sure.

So I'm the founder of Human Risk, which is a company that specializes in bringing behavioral science to ethics and compliance. And what that basically means is helping organizations to manage the risks of human decision making, so making sure that we get people to do the things we want them to do, not do the things that we don't. And my background that got me into that was I was in financial services. Like you. I became a regulator, always have to stress after the financial crisis of 2008 and they were looking for people that were unorthodox regulators to kind of shake the system up a bit. And so in that role as a regulator, I was working in supervision, which is the bit of the regulator that faces off against the outside world. And I'd taken this new post and I was looking at international banks that were in London and the international bank that I spent most of my time looking at, in fact, seven days after taking the role, there was a rogue trader at the Swiss firm ubs. And so I spent a lot of my time looking at that firm. I then joined the bank of England. So the Federal Reserve equivalent for American listeners became co, where they put half of the regulator there, they broke the regulator up. I became COO at the regulator and then joined ubs, the firm that I spent most of my time looking at in risk and compliance. And I had this very unusual experience. In the UK you are allowed to move between the regulator and regulatee. In many countries you can't do that, but in the UK you can. So I had this really unusual experience of eating my own regulatory cooking. In other words, I had to implement the, the stuff that I'd imposed on the firm. And the fascinating bit was I was working in UBS covering the asset management business, which was the one bit of the firm that hadn't really had a problem. And so all the things that I as a regulator was imposing on the firm, thinking about the investment bank and wealth management suddenly landed with me in a space where some of the things that were being very sensibly imposed on the firm for other reasons didn't make sense in the business I was in. And I had to try and square that circle of I know where this stuff is coming from, but it's being done in my name. I'm getting emails from myself, sending me on training courses that I don't understand. I've got policies that I own that I really understand, I need to do something about this. And so I looked for a solution and it dawned on me that compliance was the business of influencing human Decision making, because you can't say to an organization, be. Well, you can say it, but it won't do anything. You need the people within the organization to respond. So as I looked at what compliance was and my second hat of risk, whenever things went wrong, there was a human component involved, either causing the problem in the first place or making it worse. Suddenly, this light bulb moment of I'm in the business of influencing human decision making and behavioral science, this thing that I've been interested in as a sort of side, you know, just something that fascinated me as an individual, I suddenly went, oh, this is super relevant to my job. So I started to deploy behavioral science in that space, set up a behavioral science function, covering the firm as a whole. And then just before that pandemic thing happened, I stepped out into the wide world to do what I do now and really work with firms to think about how can we use behavioral science to get the best out of our people, but also mitigate the risk they pose.

Oh, yeah, that's such a. Such a cool journey. And like you said, being able to be on both sides of the coin and then to be able to really understand, that's one thing that I think really stood out in reading your book is the way that you are able to uniquely see kind of both sides of the problem and both the things people are likely to do and what you would like them to do kind of as you. As you talk about it in the book. And it's a really hard thing for most people to see, even if they've kind of been on both sides. But. So it's not very common to have your own best intentions come back to bite you, right?

Yeah. It's an incredibly unusual situation. And honestly, I don't think I would have got to where I've got to if I'd not had that very, very visceral experience, which is there was almost a sense of cognitive dissonance. But kind of, I'm responsible for this. I somehow own this problem. And I think if I found myself in that situation maybe 20 years earlier in my career, I might have done the sort of willful blindness, stick my head in the sand, pretend it's not going on. But I just went, I have to do something about this. And so I was just looking for a solution, and it just sort of dawned on me. And then the rest just made sense. And once I got that mission, I was like, I'm going to see this through. And so what we're talking about now is really, you know, I always say to people. This isn't rocket science, it's behavioral science. Right. But it's not rocket science in the sense that I think anybody that had my experience and has the sense of curiosity that I have would probably have got to the same place. I just happen to have been really lucky, grabbed that and just had the sort of mind that when I'm not going to let this go and let's just see where this takes us.

Yeah, well, even though. But I think there are plenty of people and many of them, I'm sure listening to the show now, that have been at the point where you've had the regulation, we'll just say, imposed upon you, right. That you're in the space and you think, well, this is ridiculous. They don't understand us. Right. And then you don't feel like you can do anything about it. You're kind of stuck and you had the unique opportunity in. In a way that I think is so funny of like, they don't get us. It's like. But they is me. Like, what?

That was me in a previous life. Right? You told me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wrote this a week ago and it's totally irrelevant.

No, I should be clear, right. Because I'd been coo. There was a gap between me and both. But actually what was interesting about that gap was the gap allowed me to think about what I'd been doing. So I wasn't like jumping over the fence in one fell swoop. It was like there was this period of time moving out of the supervision role. So I've been doing this thing intensively. I then sort of stepped back and actually a lot of the things I talk about also apply inside the regulator because you've got similar challenges there. There are restrictions on regulators, there are rules internally. There's all sorts of strange anomalies going on there. And so there was just a period of reflection. And so when I jumped over, I kind of had a little bit of a pause to think about things and then it just hit me viscerally because I was suddenly responsible for these things. So I think that gap was super helpful. And I do think sometimes we need to just step back. And the reason in the heat of the moment you get terrible regulation or you get sort of situations that are super stressful is we don't have that ability to step back. And so having that, I think gave me some clarity that perhaps wouldn't have been there if the leap had been quicker than it was.

Yeah, no, it's interesting. And I think with that, like I said, you, you had the opportunity perhaps you know that you're able to reach out to the people at the regulator because you used to be there and you had those connections. But just out of curiosity, for anyone who finds themselves in the situation that the rules are weird and they haven't worked at the regular, the regulator, do you have advice of if the rule is weird way that you can kind of, and I don't know if it's pushback or ask a question like what sort of tips do you give people?

Yeah, I think that there are always a range of rules, right. There are certain things that are absolutely non negotiable and that might be things that we've come up with ourselves, which we sort of reckon and anyone with kids, right, will have red lines where you go, this is non negotiable stuff. And we see that in safety critical industries there are certain rules that are designed to stop people getting injured or killed. And so those ones become red lines and they can sometimes be super annoying for the people that have to implement them. And I think that the challenge here is recognizing, you know, you have to understand where the rule is coming from in order to be able to know how to manage it. Because sometimes rules are painful but they do serve a genuine purpose. And so I would look at it and say, look, try and recognize things that from a regulatory perspective or who, which you know, I talk about regulators, but there's tons of other authorities that impose restrictions or regulations or requirements. It might just be head office, right. If you want to larger organization or it might be your trade association or doesn't necessarily have to be a regulator. Someone's imposing something on you that you think is a bit odd. You sort of have to sit there and say, well, can I understand where they're coming from? And that requires effort. But sometimes we can sort of go, if we look a little bit, we can, we kind of know where they're coming from, right. We see the risk that they're trying to mitigate and maybe it's just poor execution. And so sometimes I think it's just a case of trying to understand where they're coming from, to recognize it. But I think it's also helpful because you can start to say, well look, if I look at the spirit of the law, right, what are they trying to do? I think that's actually delivering it. Is there some reason that they've misinterpreted the situation I'm in? Or they're applying a standard across a piece and it really like the application in my Bit of the world doesn't make any sense, but maybe it does for other people in that space. That's then, I think, a more interesting basis to go and have a discussion. To the extent that you have that dialogue, you can start to say, look, I see what you're trying to do, but. But actually, I don't think that's delivering that. So can we do it this way? And I think there are circumstances, and I recognize many people operating in very, very tightly regulated industries will say, there's no chance we can't have that dialogue. I get that. But if you can, then I think coming to the table with an understanding of where the other side is coming from, a bit of compassion and empathy as to what they're trying to do can be a useful basis for a discussion. The second thing I would say to people is, look, if you're being asked to do something that makes no sense whatsoever and you've thought about it and you're still not clear, then that's a really good example of something where you just want to do the absolute bare minimum. In other words, if the rule wasn't there, you wouldn't be doing whatever it is or not doing whatever it is. You'd be getting on with your life. In those cases, I just say, pull back. And if so, lots of compliance people sort of say, well, but here's a rule that we have to do, so we're going to kind of implement this one properly so we can be seen to be doing it. And I say, if you think that rule is pointless and you genuinely wouldn't do it, then just do the absolute bare minimum to tick the box, right? Because you have no. And the last thing you want to do with your employees, particularly if you're in a compliance function, is to be sending them a signal that you think this is important when actually you don't, because you lose credibility. So try and make those ones as simple as possible and focus on the things that actually you do think are significant. So I think understanding where stuff comes from is super helpful. And often we don't. We don't think about, you know, we all know this from behavioral science. It's really difficult to put yourself in someone else's shoes. We sort of. The fundamental attribution error, we blame other people, we hammer their character because we're looking for some explanation to something we don't understand. So the easiest thing to do is attack the character rather than looking at the rationale behind it. So stepping back and trying to understand the rationale can give Us a potential behavioral science in action. In the sense that you'd say if I can pause and think about where they might be coming from, I may have a better solution to that than I would do otherwise.

Yeah, no, it's, it's always good to have that. You say, take the step back, look at the problem in a little bit of a different way. I feel like I'm jumping way ahead here. But one of the things. So in your humans framework, which I think we can get to in, in fuller detail later, but just to touch on it here, because it was interesting. So the N in humans being normal, right. And knowing that what you think is normal. So many times the rule is created based on a extreme non common example, but a point where you would be really glad that the thing exists on the off chance that this one thing happens. But also if they're not explaining that that is why it's set up in this way, then no one knows. And so they don't follow the rule because they think you're just being ridiculous. And in this case, I'm talking about the train which you and the labels. Right. If you want to give the story of the train label.

Right, yeah, let me, let me tell the story. So I love traveling by train. And so I spent half my time in Munich in Germany, the other half in London and even so Europeans. The train network is very good, very efficient, and lots of journeys you can, you can undertake easily by train. The London to Munich journey is a little bit unusual because one, it's, it's nine and a bit hours, which is longer than the average person wants to be spending on a train. But I use that time super productively to do research and reading and whatever. But part of that journey involves going under the English Channel. So that's the bit of water between England and France. And so the train is that. I think it's the longest underwater railway tunnel in the world. It's amazing piece of engineering. That means you can get on the train in London and you can get off the train in Brussels or Paris. So we don't have to fly to those things. We can just get the train. And so I take the train through to one of those destinations and then change and get another train on to Munich. And so I, as I'm doing this journey on quite a frequent basis, I just thought I need to inform myself I'm now a frequent, rather than a frequent flyer, I'm a frequent rider, I guess, on this rail service I must inform myself. And so I joined all of these Kind of Facebook groups. And, you know, social media is perfect for this kind of thing. You can find people that know. And I thought people, there'd be some useful information, hacks, whatever. And so I'm joining these groups and I'm sort of getting a bit more confident because I'm doing this journey quite a bit. And so I've built up this level of confidence about how the system works and what you need to do and where possible, because there's possible control on this train. This is an unusual train in the sense that you're crossing a border where there's possible control and various other things. And so. So I sort of got used to this thing and somebody posted a question saying, they says, you says you need to put labels on your bags. Like, where do I get labels from? And I was like, very cocky and went, oh, you don't need those. Let me tell you, I'm a frequent trap, right? All this stuff, and you don't need that. It says you do, but you don't. And I'm very. I'm very pleased with my answer on social media. I've contributed to the debate, right, and I've shown off a bit. And then a member of staff from Eurostar, which is the company that runs its trains, comes back with a very simple response which floored me completely, because he said, well, the reason, you know, I understand why you think you don't need them, but the reason we have this rule in place is if we have to evacuate the train, which is a genuine risk because it's going through this long tunnel, you will not be able to take your bags with you and it's going to be difficult for us to reunite you with your back. And I'm like, oh, I hadn't considered that, because normally when you get on a train, you don't need to do that, but then the risk of evacuation, because you're not going through a tunnel of anywhere near this length, it doesn't apply. And so the norms that I had taken from another situation didn't apply in the situation. And I just felt like an idiot because I was like, oh, he makes a really good point. Now, I do pin it slightly on the company because I would say you have never explained that to me. And so how could I have worked that out for myself? On the other hand, it's taken me down a peg or 10 because I'm like, oh, don't make presumptions, right? And the point that this member of staff made and the thing was, actually, you know what? Don't assume that we make rules up for no good reason. But it was this. This linkage between sometimes we don't know why rules exist and if we don't know, we can draw the wrong conclusion. And because I'm an experienced traveler on that route, my confidence levels were far higher. And so actually being a frequent. In a way, I mean, I wasn't posing risk to anyone in terms of. But like, I'm. I'm not getting the best out of the situation because I'm not thinking it through. I'm putting myself in a worse position if there was an evacuation. So there was this beautiful moment, and I've now bought some really ostentatious lab because if I go to any client meetings, right, the one thing people who read the book will go, where are the labels? Where are the labels, huh? So I have these colored labels that are massive that are there. And I've now solved that problem. But it really taught me the power of, one, not making presumptions if you're someone that's subject to rules. But two, if you're imposing rules on people, do not assume that it will be obvious to them, because we know about the curse of knowledge. If you spend a lot of time looking at something, you will. You'll understand it. You'll know it's very difficult to put yourself in the position of someone else. So I found myself in this very, very old position. But I think it's a valuable story that you know, and it's not a significant issue, but. But like, I'm now very, very compliant when it comes to that. And if I see anybody talking about late, I'm all over that now. I'm the biggest evangelist for that rule.

Because I understand it right, And I appreciate that Dunning Kruger comes up multiple times in the book. You are definitely Dunning Krugerd in that moment.

Yeah, yeah, no question at all. And I'll freely admit that I think it's a superb example because Danny Krueger, we all think, oh, well, that I'm not that stupid. And there's that famous story that I talk about in the book of MacArthur Wheeler, the guy that robbed banks and rubbed lemon juice on his face because he'd read somewhere that you could make invisible ink using lemon juice. And he's drawn this dumb conclusion and he's taken some knowledge, a small amount of knowledge, and used it in a really idiotic way. And I think, you know, I didn't have any knowledge about labels, but I did have some knowledge about the roots. So. So this False confidence completely. And, and so that's why I thought it was important in the story. When I talk about dumb rulemaking and the fact that humans have the propensity to make mistakes, I was like, I, I, I've got to fess up myself. And I think it's a good, I mean, it's not a serious issue, it's not that embarrassing. And yeah, taught me a really valuable lesson.

Yeah, I, I think, and I can't remember now if this was in the book or something I've seen in one of the many awesome posts that you put on LinkedIn or both really could be, but the example that was about the, on the road where there are the signs to have you drive slower when it's on like the freeway or whatever you call it where you're from. And that the speed, you know, it's like you go slower here and people not realizing that if you slow down, you'll actually get there faster. This was, you shared this, right?

Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yeah, it's not in the book. It's something else that I've talked about. So we have these things called variable speed limits and they exist in lots of countries. And so rather than having static speed limits where there's a sign that you approach it, they have these kind of dot matrix displays and they change the speed according to how the traffic is flowing. So someone, some authority somewhere is monitoring this stuff and keeping an eye on it. And of course one of the things that they're doing is they're looking at the flow of the system. And so they're thinking in sort of system logic, which is if we could slow everybody down, we can make the system operate more smoothly. So very often you'll find yourself in situations where you have been slowed down to a speed that feels disproportionately slow. And then you go, why did they slow me down? There was no hold up. And the reason there was no hold up is because they slowed you down. And so we can't see through that. And it's perfectly reasonable for us to think in those terms because we can't see the bigger picture. Why should we? Right, because one, we're concentrating on driving, but two, we don't have that visibility. And there are lots of rules in place like that that are designed that if we comply with those rules a bad outcome doesn't occur. But we kind of go, well, that was a silly rule. Right, because, because the thing that they, the thing they proposed as a real risk didn't actually happen. And so that's a, that's a lovely example. And I think it's made worse because it's a flexible system. So we're thinking, okay, someone here is consciously making a decision to impose a restriction on us, slowing us down. And they're idiots. They don't know what they're doing. And in fact they do know what they're doing. It's just that we can't see that, we don't understand it and we don't see the benefit of what they're doing. And I think this is also a challenge for regulators and other authorities, which is you generally only get into trouble when things go wrong. So if you do your job really well and you can include the fire service in terms of fire prevention, lots of authorities we have out there where the only evidence of either success or failure is actually failure. It's a one way thing. You can't prove success because you're proving a negative. It's literally, it's only when things go wrong. And so when you save the day, the average citizen is not eternally grateful to you. They're irritated by the fact that you've saved the day. And so I think this is a chance and I do sometimes think authorities should recognize that and try and educate people. So I do turn this back on authorities and say you're doing a great job at not slowing us down and the flow you've maintained. Flow. But I think that should be part of the job. The other part I think should be helping us now. Of course, if we know that we're being gamed, that will then have a. There's a sort of cyclical thing here. But I do think this incumbent on authority, anybody imposing rules should really stop and think and say, is this understood? And that's the point of some of the frameworks in the book, is to say we need to step back a bit because it may not be obvious now, that may not matter, but in certain situations where it does, where we're eliciting a reaction from someone because we're restricting their activity, it may be worth thinking about whether we need to show them behind the curtain, if you like.

I love the example of that. And I think it's so often that like we say, curse of knowledge or whatever it is that people assume that others will understand why they're doing the thing that they are doing. And that post that you had shared in the same way that you had the moment with the, the luggage tags, the labels, which of course I then had in reading and I travel a lot And I don't label my suitcase, so potentially I should. But with the driving piece, because we actually have a few of those speeds things here in Seattle and they're just annoying. Right? As for. And I remember when they put them in, you're like, okay, so the speed limit is regularly 60 and now I have to drive 30. Because, like, why. Right. And. But it was never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in this idea of like, you will actually get there faster if we slow you down because everybody can be a little bit safer and you know, oh, okay, right. And then I'm more likely to comply because I get it. Right. I know why it matters versus, again, feeling like you're. You've just done this because you think it's gonna work or whatever. I don't know.

Yeah. And I think, I think we, we assume because we have no evidence to the contrary. Right. So this is not necessarily. I mean, I. Sometimes we're irritated and we'll take it out on any authority that's imposing restrictions on us becomes our enemy. Because it's stopping the natural flow of things.

Monsters.

And the strange thing is, of course, when it's compliance and regulations and all those sorts of things, we notice it when it's obstructive. If it's something that we would be doing anyway or that somehow benefits us, then we tend not to pay attention to it. It's the irritants, the things that slow us down and stop us. And so when we see these things, we're sort of like, well, why is this? Why is this happening? And of course, we will make all sorts of presumptions. So let's start with the fact that when we're doing the driving one. Well, the reason we have these restrictions is because other people are idiots and they can't drive properly. And so I'm being slowed down because of these other fools here who are causing the sort of idiots to have accidents. Because a little bit like, I'm very ethical. It's all those other unethical people that need to be controlled. They need the valuable lessons and things. So we sort of assume that it doesn't apply to us. And so therefore it must be unfair on some level, and therefore it's deeply irritating and therefore it's to be fought back against. And so I think that's a natural 10 and an understandable tendency that we have. Of course, sometimes that is exactly what the rules are doing. They've created a rule that's a one size fits all and you happen to not be the person to whom that rule applies. There is a precaution put in place for people that. And we can be fair to other people and say, maybe people with, with disabilities or people where actually we do need to take more care of them, the elderly, for example. Maybe we slow traffic down in general so the elderly drivers can cope or elderly people can cross the road. There'll be some societally good reason why we do that. But other times it is genuinely a subset of the population poses a risk. And so we're going to impose something on everybody in order to catch that subset. And then the question becomes, are you part of that subset? And sometimes we are part of that subset, but we don't want to acknowledge it, or other times we're not, and we just have to suck that up. And so I think one of the challenges is that sometimes that's never communicated to us, but even if it is, if the message we're getting is you are part of that dangerous, risky, weird subset and we're going to restrict it, you're the reason these restrictions exist, that's not pleasant either. So I do recognize that authorities have a challenge here, which is sometimes the message they might communicate if they were being honest is unpalatable to the, you know, the rest of it. We don't. Unpalatable. Rather unpalatable. So unpalatable to the rest of us. And so, so they, they don't even try to do that. But I think there's also a tendency to just go, well, we're the authority. We know best. A little bit like parents, right? We're, we're in charge, we know best. And, and they will just do what they're told. And, and the thing I think I'm railing against in the book is the. Is, is not sophisticated. If we tell them that, they might, you know, there's, there's a downside to telling people. It is against the very, very lazy logic that says, and I talk about the employment contract fallacy and the employment contract fallacy is that because we employ you. So I'm looking at work situations, but this applies more broadly because we employ you, we can tell you what to do legally. Correct. That's where the employment contract becomes. The fallacy is if we rely on that contract, in other words, the only, the only way I'm going to get you to do these things is to rely on a. Then we're leaning on something that, well, we know from other situations that anytime we look at the detail of a contract and we're relying on contracts, something's gone wrong. It's very antagonistic, it's legalistic. And so sometimes it's okay to rely on that, but often people just rely on that. I do this because I can. And so one of the rules in the book is just because you can doesn't mean you should. And the message to authorities there is, look, yes, you have all these powers, but I think it's actually incumbent on you to think about the perspective of the people that you're basically controlling or attempting to control, and think about whether there wouldn't be a greater good in communicating more effectively with them about the rationale for why you're doing it. Particularly in democratic societies where ultimately we elect our politicians and therefore our regulators and rulemakers. I think, you know, it's fairer to explain to people what's going on. It's more ethical as well. And so I don't think anywhere near enough of that goes on.

Yeah, definitely. I really liked the, that section on the employment contract fallacy. And you talk about all sorts of really great behavioral science principles in the book. You have sections on, of course, Dunning, Kruger and the Curse of Knowledge and confirmation Bias and lots of other things that, that are brought up throughout. And with that, though, if the only reason people will do the thing is because they have to. Like you said, the. My least favorite thing with, as a kid, you know, you'd say, why do I have to do this? Like, because I say so. Well, that's.

I mean, it's the world's worst argument, right? I mean, it's very, very weak. Now I can understand why parents sometimes resort to that because frustration. I've had enough, like, stop asking questions. We just need to get this thing done. I do not have time to explain it to you. Maybe you wouldn't understand why. And, and it's opening a whole box of things. And so I've got sympathy for parents that do that. You don't want to be doing that all the time because you're literally saying to kids, don't ask questions. Which I think is, as someone that's naturally curious, I think is a really dangerous thing to show.

Please don't, please don't get shut down. Questions. Questions are good, right?

There's no such thing as a stupid question. Right? So I think that's a really important start point. But when I get authorities or organizations effectively using the same logic by saying, well, that's the way we've always done things, or that's just the way we do things around here, or that's the best practice in our industry, I bristle at that because I think that in many cases that's because the person saying it doesn't understand or can't justify it. And they're kind of. They're running to this feeble excuse. And we all know it's a feeble excuse. And so I think if that's the best you've got to offer, then you should really think about why you're implementing that particular rule. Now, the counter argument to that is don't scrap rules, right? Just because you don't understand why it's there. Don't scrap things until you understand what it's there for. Keep it in place, because it may be a really, really good reason thing called Chesterton's Fence for your listeners to look at, which is basically this principle that says don't take down a fence until you know why it's there, because maybe it's stopping some animal coming into your enclosure that you don't want. So I do think it's very careful. We need to understand these things. But if we're not asking any questions about where rules have come from, where we can end up with weird practices that we just carry forward in the absence of any better explanation. And I think we should know if we're going to do things, if we're going to impose restrictions on people, which ultimately is taking their time, their energy, it's costing money, then we should know why and then we can decide is what we're doing sometimes we will need to do. You know, I talk in the book about something that Netflix does and Netflix talks about. And so this is talking about the way they run the company, as opposed to one of their TV shows. The way they run the company is they have these basic principles of recoverable and irrecoverable. And so they say there are certain things we never, ever, ever want to have happen, which would be, for example, the platform going down for a period of time, customer credit card details spread over the Internet, racism, sexism, bullying, undesirable outcomes. And those things we call irrecoverable, we cannot get back from those because we've crossed a line that is different to things we do not want to have happen but we can handle if they do. And those they call recoverable. And so their point is, let's focus really heavily and say if something is irrecoverable, we throw lots of effort at it. And that might require us to be draconian. It might require us to rely on the employment contract. In the case of employees, it might Require us to put extra control, be a pain in the butt because this is important. And I think that's interesting because it's saying not all rules are the same and people are going to, all of us break rules on a daily basis, not serious ones, I would hope we're all unethical and we will screw things up. And so what Netflix is basically saying, let's literally put the equivalent of sort of big locks and safes around the things that really matter. And those things we start to impose restrictions on people and we will be very, very heavy handed in that space. But for the other stuff, of course, we're not going to encourage people to do it. We're going to put some protections around it, but we'll be lighter touch there because we can recover from it. Now if we've got an individual that is constantly breaking rules, even in the recoverable space, you're like, well, we need to do something about that. But we've sent a clear distinction to people and we all know this from our day to day existence. There are certain things, the way I like to look at this, look around your home, there will be certain repairs that haven't been done where you sort of get used to like a tap that's sort of a faucet for American listeners. You know, sort of sort of thing where you go, it's, it's not working perfectly. But I can live with it. And particularly if you're the, if you're the homeowner. But your propensity to get it fixed is even if you're, if you're renting, you're going to go straight and go, you need to fix this right away. But if you own it, you will live with certain things. And there's other things, maybe something involving electrics where you're like, this is super dangerous. We can't afford to have that happen. And so we understand this calibration as human beings because we all do it in our own lives. And so I think authorities can be very draconian when the reason for that draconian thing is understood. And so these clear delineations I think help to do that. Because then you say, okay, this is a rule that is really significant. I must be very careful around this. Here's one I probably shouldn't break. But ultimately if I've got a choice between screwing up on a serious thing or screwing up on a less serious one, then I know, you know, I've got a clear distinction. And that helps people to navigate the world of your rules.

Yeah, well, And I think it really lends to the humans framework too. And I know you make the. One of the points in there that if you want it to be meaningful. Right. And so people to understand why you're asking them to do something, but also that you want making it clear that you understand what they will likely want to do and letting them know why you're asking them to do the thing that may feel like something they don't want to do. Do you want to share a little bit about what the humans framework is?

Yeah. So the framework basically is saying it's not all encompassing because this is a behavioral dynamic. So these are complex and challenging. And so the idea behind humans as a framework is. And I'm delighted I've managed to make it fit into that word because that really sums the piece up. It took a lot of effort to get there.

I believe it.

And so the idea behind each, it's very simple terms. Each letter stands for, for a word. And this is designed to allow people that are imposing rules on others. So you can think compliance functions, regulators. But even if you're just a manager of people, you're getting, you're asking. I talk in the book about asking or telling people to do things. I refer to it as asking, but ultimately you can view as telling. Asking is just a little bit nicer. So if you're going to get people to do something or prevent them from doing something, what the framework allows you to do is think about how is this going to land in the case of things you're about to impose or is landing in the case of things that are already there. And it gives us a framework to think about things from their perspective. So the H is helpful. And the illustration with helpful is to say that we need to think about if we are asking someone to do something, then how are they going to perceive it? Is it helpful to them? Not is it theoretically helpful and not is it helpful for the organization, but is it helpful to them as individual. What's in it for me? Type question. And so there are going to be certain things where if somebody comes across something and you would say, here is an example of a regulation that's stopping me from doing something that I would ordinarily do. This is a pain in the butt, unhelpful. Whereas there are going to be rules that actually save your life, support you make life easier for you, whatever. Where you might say helpful and there may be a load of things where you can't. It's neutral. Right. And so if something's neutral with Any aspect of the framework, you can just ignore it, right? This isn't. You mustn't slavishly follow the thing. It's just designed to say, is there anything in this that jumps out? So H is helpful. U is the one you raised, which is a bit more complicated. So U equals understand. And so the basic principle here that I start with is to say if you want someone to comply with the rule or requirement, right, they need to understand it to be able to do it. Because if you don't understand something, then you might accidentally comply with it, but there's a strong likelihood of you not doing so. And if there's a qualitative component, in other words, you want people to do it to a certain standard, you know, being ethical would be a good example. Then they really do need to understand it in order to be able to do it to the right level, make the right choices. And so that's the basic principle of it. So the more they understand it, the greater the ability to comply, but also the greater the ability not to comply. That's the other. That's the flip side there, because if you understand the rule, you can suddenly start to see loopholes. So these things. What I'm trying to illustrate is the complexity of these pieces. But you understand saying, do they understand it? The other bit of you for understand is then the bit you just talked about, which is to say it's also important if we're imposing rules to think about how will they our target? I talk about target audiences and I generally mean employees, but I might mean customers or anybody else that we're trying to influence. How will they perceive our understanding of this? In other words, is this ask something that the person asking fully understands what they're asking for, or are they making ridiculous requests of us? And so it's turning it around and saying it's also important for us to have. We need to know, do they understand it? Are they likely to understand it? But also do they think we understand it? Do we know what we're asking for? Because we've all been in situations where we've had somebody who has no understanding of the task that they're giving to us. Can you just do this on the assumption it's super easy and, or. Or that, you know, this can be easily delivered and that's really irritating when we have somebody who's chucking something at us and we're supposed to deal with it, and it's much harder than that person thought. And so there's an illustration of just in that One word, you know, you for understand. There's a whole load of complexity there. But what I'm getting us to do is to think about things from, from everybody's perspective. But ultimately the start point is taking people that are imposing requirements on people and saying, let's think about things from the other side. Right? So not you have the authority to do this. And I'm not saying don't do it because you might decide you're going to do it anyway, but at least understand what you're asking of people. And so if something is particularly irritating for the people that you're imposing it on, you might not be able to do anything about that, but then you would know that it poses a higher risk. In other words, this is potentially a rule or requirement where the basics don't look great. Right? So it's something. Let's just use the two things we've talked about. So we're imposing something that the people it's being imposed on will find unhelpful and they are unlikely to understand. Now, we may be able to cure the understanding thing by explaining it to them, but it may be so technically difficult. Or in the case of the traffic example we gave you, could be counterproductive. If I explain it to you, you may never agree with that logic. And it's not in my interest to do that. So I can't do anything about that. And then we can start to say, what can we play with? And therefore, if we can't play with it, recognize that dynamics that pose a risk to our objectives mean that we say that thing poses a greater risk. The other behavioral science thing we can do with the framework is to say, look, if we can't change reality, in other words, I can't make this thing actually more helpful. Maybe I can change the perception of it. Maybe I can use a framing around the thing to not change the realities we're asking people to do. But maybe, I don't know, something like chunking, break it up into smaller tasks. The overall task looks is the same, but it doesn't look that way. It feels like an easier thing. So all of this stuff is using behavioral science as a design or diagnostic tool, but also as the basis for, well, what could we play with if we can't change reality?

Yeah, well, and I'm glad you brought up framing. I was thinking about that with the helpful piece too. Right. So we don't need to tell everyone everything about everything. That's the flip side, which could happen. I'm not going to say that those working on compliance and rules are more likely to share everything about everything. But you know, and so if, but then we overwhelm people and they're not seeing anything. Right. There was the, you had the example of the 44 page dress code or whatever I think in the book. Right. And like you say, we've all been in the, the check the box boring annual training that you have to do and go, yeah, prove that, you know, it's like the, the thing that it uses for the quiz is always something that no one is ever going to have to know, but it's some obscure thing like what year the law was published. It's like, okay, right.

Easily testable, utterly useless information.

Right? Yes. And so then it makes everything feel like it was just such a waste of time. And I don't focus on perhaps the important things because I was looking for useless information that I think will be testable. Like, you know, the name of the person who was the brother in law of the person who named the law or whatever.

Right. Ultimately, it's incredibly lazy. This stuff really irritates me because what you've highlighted there is. Okay, so we're going to teach them something about rules, something that maybe in the middle of it all there'll be some useful stuff. Right. But we need to demonstrate that they have listened and paid attention. How can we do that? Oh, well, we'll just pick facts on numbers is the best thing when numbers lend themselves to simple tests. So what we're going to do is we're going to, we're going to tell you something and then a few minutes later we're going to ask you for your instant recall of that particular fact. And that's going to demonstrate that we've taught you some interesting things.

So that when something goes wrong and we have our employment contract and we can say we told you and look, you know that you did the thing. Right. It feels very like getting ready to set me up and blame me as the employee. Right?

Yeah, yeah, it's totally. And the thing that I think is astonishing about this is that when we go through these processes, we know this, we can smell this a mile off. And so the example I talk about, a lot of companies use attestations and so they say once a year there'll be this kind of compliance attestation that says I've complied with all the rule, you know, I've complied, memorized, understood all of the rules and regulations. And that feels like this is a great exercise. So if we ever need to fire those people, we've Got it in writing. And they've perjured themselves. Right. So it's entrapment in some cases. You, you'd say. And so I look at that and say, well, actually that's fine and I understand the theoretical legal purpose of it, but I do wonder if you actually went to court and said, oh, okay, right. Does every single employee know every single thing that's, that's in these. You could probably prove that it's a ridiculous exercise. And so I question whether the legal, the legal force is there. But let's assume that that is what's interesting about it is the signal it sends the people going through the process because human beings are sentient. So whenever our employer imposes something on us, we have a view on that process. And so if I come across something where I am required to sign my life away, either click or sign something that says I've done something, our brains, I contend, race to similar situations where we also do that in the wider world, what I call compliance in the wild. And so if we think about when else in life are we asked to sign things that are lengthy and tedious and whatever. And the answer is car rental agreements, right? We go there, we want to rent the car, and we, I don't know what we have to sign multiple times for some reason I've never understood, right? So we sign these lots of things, we click, click, click, click, click, click, click. We have no idea. All we know is that's highly userious and it's not in our best interest at no point, at least. But I can't go negotiate with Hertz or AV or whoever it is, right? I can't say, oh, clause 22 is outrageous. Strike through that, right? Because it's take it or leave it. And so we just sign this thing and hope for the best to get the car. Ditto downloading software. You know, I can't negotiate with Apple or Microsoft and go, I don't like that clothes if I want to use the software. And so we are conditioned to see these exercises as well. I can't negotiate and click it. So what do we think happens when we up the stakes? And we up the stakes by saying, ah, this is no longer about a car rental or piece of software. This is about your job and you need to keep your job because that's how you earn money and live your life. So if we up the stakes and put people just saying, what are they going to do? They're going to do exactly the same thing they do in these other performative situations. Point 1 so they're not actually reading it because there's no point. Right. But the second thing is they are going to recognize it for what it is, which is an opportunity for the employer to pit themselves against the employee, to basically say, please sign this, it's not in your best interest, it's in our best interest. And so if we're going to do that one, let's not kid ourselves that that is a good test as to whether people have actually done the things that we've said. And the second thing is let's recognize that there's an impact on the people doing it, which I recognize this as a situation where I'm being put at a disadvantage. And so the question to employers is, is that worth it? Right. Do you really want to put your employees in a position that reminds them of other situations where they're in an antagonistic relationship? Now, we can get away with that. And so I'm not saying don't do it, but I'm saying recognize it for what it is and understand that that comes at a cost. And if all we're doing through our compliance training and HR training and health and safety, all these processes, if what we're doing in all those processes is putting our employees in positions that they recognize in other contexts to be usurious, unpleasant odds stacked against you, likely to be confrontational, then we're building an interesting relationship with them that I would contend is not necessarily constructive to a longer term relationship that builds trust and all those sorts of things. So not saying don't use it, but understand it for what it is. And I think people, we often just roll these things out because we can, and sometimes we have to to meet regulation. Right, but understand the impact it's having and then work out if it's really necessary. And if it is, then say, okay, well, if that's supposed to be the exercise that we use to check whether people have actually read all the rules and understood them, we know that that's useless. So we're going to have to do something else that allows us to manage the actual underlying risk that this theoretical exercise does.

Yeah, for sure. Well, I want to circle back a little bit there to where I had said that I was glad you mentioned framing that had to do with the, the H and not overwhelming people with too much stuff. And so along those lines, then, you know, is to find the thing that is going to be helpful for them and to showcase that benefit. And yes, there are other things and other reasons why it's good for you, but if it's you know, you, I had think you had the example of filling out customer information when we are done with the sale. And like people don't like to take the notes because it takes up time and whatnot. But. And if you just say like, well, you know, it's helpful for us if we're going to do this thing down the line or we like to track on our side to make sure you're meeting your goals or something, you know, like that's great. Right. But if it's instead to say like, and you have the example of we're going to analyze this data to help everyone to be able to increase their close ratios or there's something else, it's not, it doesn't have to be the only reason you do it, it doesn't have to be the only thing you tell them. But at the end of the day, if you want them to be compliant and you likely do, helping to give the information as to why it is valuable to them and to frame it in a way, they go, oh, okay, that makes sense, they're going to do what you need and they can understand that there are these other benefits as well, but they know it's helpful for them so they're more likely to comply.

Yeah, and I think it's simply a case of saying in a given situation, if you need something to happen, do you have the possibility to find something in a process that will increase the perception of the people you're asking to do this? And in the case of helpfulness, is there something. So if I'm asking to do something, what's in it for them? And we all know that in transactions, if we're doing something for someone else, that reciprocity there, well, so what am I getting back in return for this commitment? And if the answer simply is that's what you have to do to work here, fine, you can push that. But actually is there a way of saying here's something useful and that feedback, we just don't often do that feedback loop. We impose things on people and we just say, well this is useful to the organization, therefore they will do it. And I say there's often information, you know, if it's filling in a form to gather some information, is there some sort of useful feedback? Is there something, something beneficial? And I think there are, you know, there are lots of things. If we look at health and safety or kind of first aid or any of the sort of. So there are skills that are useful to people in their private lives. This is why I love going in to talk to people about behavioral science. Because the behavioral science isn't something that just restricts itself to people's work environments. Right. The most exciting you'll have this, I'm sure, right? In workshops, the most excitement you get, people go, oh, so I can use this on my kids as well, right? And I'm like, yeah. And you can you. This is being used on you. And I'm always careful to say used on is probably the wrong way to phrase it, but it works in those situations. But it also helps you to understand why do I get irritated? Why am I being ripped off when I go into this store? Right. Why does that feel like a usurious relationship? It's giving you keys to look at things there. And so I use that tool when I'm teaching people in organizations about behavioral. So, yes, I'm talking about it in a compliance context. But I also say to them, don't leave this at the door when you walk out the office or when you log out of your system is actually, you can use this in other contexts. And so it's useful. And I think we could take that same logic and say, is there anything at all that we can offer people? So we're asking them to do a whole bureaucratic exercise. Is there some benefit to them in doing it? Do we give them some, you know, we collect data from them. Do we give them some data about other stuff that's going on, just something in return? And we know this as well. This is the other bit I think is really interesting. We know this from other situations. We are often bribed by companies to fill in surveys. You know, give us customer survey and we'll enter you into prize draw. Now, the chances of winning that prize draw, fairly limited, but I'm up for that, right? Oh, I can get like, I can save something. I might win an Amazon voucher if.

I'm really, really lucky, for $5 or.

Right?

Yeah.

And I'll fill in this survey. So we know, and I'm not suggesting that companies should bribe their employees to do these things, but we recognize that. So the basic premise of if we do something we like to get something back in return also applies even when it's in an employment situation. And yes, we can force it on people, but again, if we're doing a survey and we want people to fill in a form and there's any qualitative component at all, then we want them to do it to a high standard. Otherwise we're gathering useless data. So if we need it done to a high Standard, we need to find some incentive that makes it feel like it's worth doing. Otherwise people will fill that in. And I think lots of compliance things require people to do things to a standard. If that's the case, think really carefully about what's in it for them. Not theoretically, but practically, and not from an organizational perspective, but for them as an individual. And if you can find that way of selling it, suddenly their propensity to do it should increase.

Yeah, for sure. And I know you talk a bit about incentives in the book and mixed signals by UI Nizi. I'll definitely link to his episode in the show notes as we go to wrap this up. I know we made it through the H and the U of humans. Do you want to do a really quick summary?

Yeah, let's do a quick, quick one. So M M is for manageable, really simple principle here. Is it feasible for them to comply? And sometimes we will put people in positions that makes it difficult for them to do. And so we shouldn't be surprised if they. If it's hard for them to do so, there's a little bit of can they do it at all? Is the thing they've asked them to do, Is it feasible at all for that individual? Sometimes we impose rules on entire organizations without thinking about. There may be certain circumstances where that's not possible or it's significantly harder. We know from behavioral science in general, the easier something is, the more likely people are to do it. So it's saying, is it feasible for them? Do they have the wherewithal to do it? The capability, the time, the effort, the knowledge to be able to do that? And so we should just recognize how difficult is the thing that we're asking them to do. If it's particularly hard, let's try and make it easier to make it more likely. Equally, you've talked a lot about friction, I know, in the past, maybe we want them not to do something, and if it's very manageable to do it, maybe we need to make it harder to do that thing. So that's playing with those dynamics of saying things you want people to do, make easy things you want people to. Or make it seem easy. Right. Or things you don't want to make it seem harder. So flex that one A is for acceptable. And the idea behind acceptable is to say, just because we can impose a rule doesn't mean that that will necessarily be accepted. So my favorite example for that is often companies may go for what you might term overreach. So imagine a company says, well, we don't want employees having social media accounts because that poses a risk to us. You might say something embarrassing on social media. So we're going to ban you from doing that. And so whether that is acceptable to employees will depend on the nature of the employment. If you're working for the FBI, you might turn around and go, I fully understand why I'm not allowed to do that because that's what I signed up for. It's for my own protection. I can't do that. The whereas if you happen to be working for retail firm and they stop you having a Facebook or a LinkedIn account, you might go that, well, that's overreach. I don't find that acceptable. So what we're doing there is saying not what are we legally allowed to do? How is this going to land with those people? Will they find this acceptable or not? The more acceptable they find something, the more we can push it. And maybe we might identify things where we could push it further because there's a huge degree of acceptance and that's looking at just the perspective of what, what goes, you know, what's what, what else are you asking them to do? What's their view on it? Will they be familiar with this particular thing and so on and so forth. So how acceptable is it? N is for normal. And that's looking at social proof really. But also thinking about, so are other people doing this? Is this, is this something that is. Is normal to. Does it feel like a normal ask or is it this feel very, very unusual? Are my friends who work for a competing organization in the same sector, are they being asked to do this? Would they find that acceptable? What do I think about that? Is this something I recognize or not? And so it doesn't mean that we don't do it. We might say let's explain to them why this is different. Maybe we are different to other companies, hence we need to do that. And maybe we have to impose something that's a bit weird. Well then at least we know that that's there. So we're looking at the social piece there and saying is this actually what people will recognize? This is a social dynamic and we can play with that social proof piece. The S in humans is for salient. It is the last one. It's the most complicated one because people go, what does salient mean? Your listeners will understand that. So I won't both explaining that, but basically I go into a little bit of explanation in the book as to what salient means. But simple idea is if a rule is not salient or requirement's not salient to us, then we're less likely to comply. Well, it's not to think about it simply if I forget that a rule exists or maybe I don't even know that a rule exists, I can't comply with it or I'm not going to comply with it. So we need to make things feel relevant and salient and so we can think about timing as a good example there of saying something might be salient to me at one point in time. So if a company has a policy, I know travel policy. The time a travel policy is most likely to be sailing is when we are about to go on a journey when it's most relevant to it. The airline safety briefings are given to us just as we are getting. As we're sat on the plane. We're a captive audience. They don't Send you a YouTube link six months in advance or you can't book a flight till You've watched this YouTube video. They tell you at the point it's most relevant. And so making things salient and recognizing this is where the curse of knowledge comes in. What is salient to us because we're looking at it all the time, may not be salient to them. So what's the propensity of the people that we're trying to influence to know about this thing, be aware and have it top of mind and we may need to play with that to make something more or less compliable.

Yep. Funny enough, I actually avoid the word salient or salience a lot and so the audience potentially hasn't heard it too much because I don't find the concept of salience to be very salient and therefore I don't use it.

Well, I was. So it's interesting.

So it depends on the audience.

Yeah, right. So I was, I needed an S obviously to get the human in there. But the reason, I think, the reason I think salience works in this context. So. So the way I look at salience is it, is it. Am I aware of it? Is it sort of in my, in my thinking? And so we can think about this as we walk through life. There will be things that are not salient to your regular commute to your office. You won't notice loads of things unless something unusual happens because we're on autopilot. We just so things that we would notice if it were unusual. You know, a strange looking vehicle, someone behaving strangely, we have a near miss of an accident, someone's road rage incident happens, whatever it happens to be. That will make that particular thing. So it grabs our attention. And so in this case, I think it. I agree with you. It's a very strange concept. But it sort of means. Has it, you know, have we got through to people in the right context? That's there. And I think often we. The reason I also think it's powerful is we often think if we're creating rules, well, it must be obvious to them because we told them. It says it. We put it on a poster.

God, one time in one place that. Yeah, right.

Once upon a time we told that. We sort of alluded to it and we expect them to. We told them in induction training. And induction training is a big bugbear of mine where I sort of go, we spent. You know, people join an organization, they're not interested in listening to a whole load of information about risks and ethics and blah, blah. They. All they care about is where's the coffee machine? Have I made a terrible mistake? Those sorts of questions. And yet we load the wrong bit of information to people. And so salience for me is around saying, what is it? If we can think about what is up, what questions they asking and curiosity for me, and this is the essence of your show, Melina, is, you know, people. The people listen to the show because they're curious about humans and how they operate. And so I would say if you can find a rule that plays to people's curiosity, they sort of go, oh, that's interesting. Why? You know, or just, just find some quirk which is. Can grab their attention. If we have their attention, we have a greater likelihood of them being willing or even able to comply with our rule.

Yeah, definitely. And you know, the concept of salience is very important and critical within behavioral science. I just don't bring it up all that much. And that's where I'll talk about context, which is not fully grasping salience. But I actually did want to talk about that, so I'm glad that you brought it up and you know, works out that it's part of the, the framework to, to address it here. So. Well, thank you so, so much. We already know that we can talk for literal hours, as we did when I was just recently in London and we realized we had been chatting for three hours. But we will go ahead and cut it here. But for everyone who does want to find out more about you and your podcast and get their copy of the book, in addition to the show notes, you know, what's the best place for them to get in contact and learn more.

Well firstly, thank you so much for having me. I'm a big fan of the show. Absolute pleasure. And as you say, we could keep talking forever. So quick answer to that is human-risk.com is the website you'll find details of the book me and things I do. And if you want to connect on LinkedIn, just search for Human Risk and you will find me there.

Perfect. And like we said, we'll have it linked in the show notes so everyone can find you. And you know, thanks again for joining me. It was fun to chat with you.

You as always, an absolute pleasure. Thank you.

Thank you again to Christian Hunt for joining me on the show today. What got your brain buzzing in today's conversation? For me, I very much enjoy chatting with Christian. He's a wealth of information and I love how he sees the world in a little different way. As mentioned in our conversation, he shares great stuff on LinkedIn. I always love reading his posts as I learn something in a little bite. A fun little tidbit that sticks with me and shapes the way I see the world after that. Can you ask for more? Of course. Christian's book Humanizing Rules is so great as well. If you work in compliance, yes, but for everyone else as well. Whether you want to know more about yourself and the way you respond to rules or you're looking at how you can enforce them with your team, or maybe how you create and frame them when talking with your kids. There is so much great insight in this book. I highly recommend it as well as the Human Risk podcast which I have had the honor of being a guest on in the past. Those episodes will be linked for you in the show notes, of course, as well as ways to connect with Christian and get your own copy of Humanizing Rules and so much more. It's all waiting for you in the app you're listening to and atthe brainy business.com 311 and thank you again to Christian Hunt for joining me me on the show today. It was a delight to chat with and learn from you. Join me Tuesday for another Brainy episode of the Brainy Business Podcast. It's going to be a lot of fun. You won't want to miss it. Until then, thanks again for listening and learning with me and remember to be thoughtful.

Thank you for listening to the Brainy Business Podcast. Molina offers virtual strategy sessions, workshops and other services to help businesses be more brain friendly. For more free resources, visit thebrainybusiness. Com.