How Leaders Shape the Future with Geoff Tuff and Steven Goldbach

You're listening to the Creating a Brand podcast, where we deliver weekly interviews on topics to help entrepreneurs make their first or next step in business the right one. I am your host, Alex Sanfilippo. Within your personal or professional life, would you say that you're shaping the future as a leader? In today's conversation, I am joined by Geoff Tuff and Stephen Goldbach. They are the co-authors of the book titled Provoke, which talks about how leaders can shape the future by overcoming fatal human flaws and organizational tendencies. Discovering how to overcome our natural biases that hold us back is paramount for shaping a better future. This is an extremely insightful conversation full of points that each of us can learn from and implement. For links to resources that we mentioned on this episode, please visit creatingabrand.com/128. And now here is my conversation with Geoff and Steven. Geoff and Stephen, welcome to the Creating a Brand podcast.

Thanks. Thanks for having us on.

Thanks for having us.

Absolutely. I have said that a couple of times because the audience needs to know this. This is our 4th attempt at recording this podcast episode. Uh, the first time, uh, Stephen was actually in the middle of a hurricane and lost power temporarily. It was, it was pretty rough. And after that I got COVID, so I had to cancel that one. And then we had one other time where it just didn't work out, but guys, I am so happy that we're actually going to be recording This episode for the listeners today.

This is like the podcast version of the Spinal Tap drummer. I don't know how many of your listeners will get that reference, but, um, hopefully we'll get it right this time.

Anyway, the whole point in saying this to creating a brand, the listeners today, is this has been a task to make this happen. No one exploded or anything like that. Thankfully, we're all, we're all here. We're making it happen. But today I'm really excited to talk through your guys' book titled Provoke. And I, I really enjoyed this book because main reason being it challenged me to take action. Which the listeners know, I say this a lot, that is if a book challenges me to take action, to think and to do something different after reading it, then that is a win of a book for me. So you guys did a great job on this. So thank you so much for putting Provoke together. I definitely really enjoyed it.

Thanks for saying that. And thanks for reading it.

Absolutely. So I also want to mention, I enjoyed the illustrations you had throughout of it. It was done by a guy named Tom Fishburne, who I immediately followed on Instagram and got some good laughs out of some of his content. If anyone has worked in the corporate world, this guy's like illustrations and cartoons he comes up with are just gold. So I recommend everyone to go follow that on Instagram as well. I'll have a link to it in the show notes, but I thought it was brilliant that you guys incorporated that into the book. It really made it more interesting and actually further proved some of the points that you guys had in the book in a humorous way, which I really enjoyed.

Tom literally saved our readers thousands of words. And, uh, Geoff and I had the intent on our first book, Detonate, that We didn't want it to come across as taking ourselves too seriously. I think Geoff's first inclination was to make it like a coffee table book. Then we realized that our audience likes to read books on airplanes, and maybe it's not so practical to have a big 11 by 17. But then we came up with the idea of having comics, and Tom was a natural pair.

I think that was a great insight on your guys' part. Definitely helped the read along the way, made it very interesting and pretty funny along the way. as well. So thanks for that. That was cool. So today we're going to dive into this book, Provoke. I think the best place to start would be to get an actual definition of what provoke means in regard to this book and our conversation today. And also for sake of, I guess, to call it vocal recognition baseline, if you will, I would love to hear Geoff answer this question talking about, again, what does this word provoke mean?

Sure. So the first thing I'll say is it's not intended to connote what a lot of people think about when it comes to the word provoke or provocation. And a lot of Certainly, I grew up, and I think we write about this in the book, in a household with a British father where to provoke was a terrible thing, because usually provoke means go and poke someone and see if you can get a rise out of them. And there's a little bit of that in here, but really the way Steve and I think about what it means to provoke in this context is to create change or cause change in a way that leads to a future in which you have advantage or what you're trying to achieve actually comes true. So we talk about the word in terms of provoking the future in which you have advantage. A lot of really the genesis for the ideas in the book, and this is in some ways a continuation from our previous book, Detonate, is based on the premise that we are increasingly, and this has been especially true over the course of the last 5 years or so, We're increasingly living in a world governed by uncertainty rather than risk. With uncertainty comes a whole range of different changes in the way we need to operate. But one of the upsides of uncertainty is we believe that it's possible to take action in completely new ways and in a wider array of ways to create change that actually will be a good thing for you, your organization, and the world. We can certainly explore that. theme in more depth, but this book is a call to action to our readers to do something, to act, to not sit back and assume that all the old rules apply and that we don't have an opportunity to influence the future. We do.

100%. Again, this book being one that actually called me to action, I think that you all did a really good job with that. I mean, it provoked me to actually do something. Steven, do you have anything you want to add to this definition before we move on?

The only thing I'd say in addition to the definition is that the problem The reason why we use the term provoke and the definition that Geoff described is the problem we want to solve is that what we have found over 25 years each of consulting to a variety of organizations is that the tendency of executive leadership is to See a challenge and then study it. And what we're saying is that in a world that's, as Geoff said, governed by uncertainty, studying the issue is unlikely to yield a lot of incremental benefit. What would yield incremental benefit, however, is action, because action is going to help you understand the contours of the uncertainty in such a way that allows you to learn and then take further action. But it's that tendency to study, the tendency to do analysis, which is by definition historically, historical looking, that isn't focused on what might happen in the future. And so we want to shift people's gut instinct from studying to action. And that's the, that's the problem we're— that's the problem we set out to solve.

You know, this makes me think back to my time in corporate America. I was in aerospace for many years. And me and a few others that were very action-driven senior directors of the company, when we get in the room with others, and I'm going to leave everyone nameless, I loved everyone that I worked with, but we'd call what they would do just analysis paralysis. Like they would just, okay, let's go back and look at that. Like, what does our 20-year history say about this decision we're trying to make? Which can be good to a certain extent, but it would get to the point where if they were in the meetings, there was going to be no practical action afterwards. Is that kind of like the same thing that we're talking about here?

Yeah. And it's not a, it's not because those people are stupid or evil or— Of course, right. Or like what we found was that the problem is that it's inherently human to do the thing that you're describing. And there's a number of cognitive biases that we all fall prey to, whether it's the status quo bias, which suggests that people are much more comfortable with the status quo and therefore have a bias to try to keep it because we experience that any deviation from the status quo as a loss, whether it's the affect heuristic bias, because we don't experience any emotion from the challenge because it's in the really distant future. We often overweight things that are current in the present. There are a number of those cognitive biases, which we refer to them as fatal flaws in the subtitle, that actually make it harder for people to see the future for what it could be. And therefore, their tendency is to try to understand it more and don't take action. When you combine those human fatal flaws with organizational tendencies for how people behave in groups, like seeking broad consensus and being polite to each other and not wanting to challenge different thinking, then you actually get that tendency towards studying and you get these things that we refer to as organizational blinders that prevent the organization from having any peripheral vision in order to see the exponential change that's coming from a number of different technologies that we see in the world.

The interesting thing, I couldn't agree more with everything that Steve just said, perhaps obviously, but the interesting thing about the tendency to analyze is it is a learned behavior and a learned positive behavior. So the thing that I think we can't stress enough is that we're not saying that the behaviors of organizations and executives and organizations for the past 100 years have been wrong. What we're saying is we're in a time of flux. Things are changing. And in the past, when we have been in a world that's been governed primarily by linear change, and I know you know, Alex, that one of the themes in our book is that a lot of this shift is happening because of the shift in the nature of change from being linear to being more exponential for a variety of reasons.

Right.

But because we have historically lived in a world of linear change, number one, we've had enough time to do the necessary analysis to actually make the right decisions. And number two, instead of being governed by uncertainty, we've been governed by risk. And doing analysis is actually a good way to take risk out of decisions. It's just our argument is, We're no longer living in that world, or I'd say we're increasingly living in a different type of world that requires a different set of approaches to making choices.

I think it's brilliant. You all actually mentioned where I want to go with this conversation, and this is before we get into how to become a leader that shapes the future, because that's where I ultimately want to end this conversation. But I want to walk through more of these things that are actually holding us back, and maybe they're just outdated mindsets that some of us have. Again, no one's doing them to be in the wrong purposely or to be a monster or anything like that. It's just this is historically how we've acted. But Geoff and Steven, I'd love to identify some of these natural human fatal flaws that you talk about, and also the 5 organizational tendencies that really seem to hold us back. I don't know who would like to speak on these points first, but I'd like to just walk through all 10 of these points here, if you all are okay with that.

Alex, just to summarize, because I know you mentioned 10, I want to make it really simple for your listeners, and if you want to put it in the show notes. The 10 are the availability bias. This is the bias towards information that's easily accessible, the egocentric bias, which is the bias towards information that conforms to your own worldview, the affect heuristic bias, which is the bias towards things that cause emotional responses, the status quo bias, and then the overconfidence bias.

Each of the biases that we talk about and that Steve just named in the book are well-known kind of human tendencies that come from the world of behavioral science, behavioral economics. And so I don't think the biases that we talk about, the fatal flaws, necessarily are anything brand new, but what we have tried to do is identify the ones that we think are most likely to create those organizational blinders to prevent any organization from seeing the full playing field that they should be when they're considering the possibility of exponential change.

Right.

The other interesting thing that we've observed, and again, all of our writing, all of the writing Steve and I do comes from the experience we have with our clients, but when you get those human tendencies, those human biases, all interacting together in organizations, in clusters of people, some interesting things happen and some of them are entirely predictable. When you talk about the collision of the various different things that Steve just talked about, one of the things that ends up happening is people try to avoid embarrassment. They don't like to stand out and have a different point of view from others in case others call them out on being wrong because everyone else is working with their own set of data and their own, for example, availability biases. Therefore, if you do something that is counter to what the rest of the group thinks, someone may call you out and say, you're wrong, you're working off the wrong data, or what have you. Generally, what we observe in organizations is people sit back in meetings and only if they're super confident that they're right or that they have an opportunity to disprove someone else's hypothesis, they just don't say anything.

Right.

Therefore, you don't get those diversity of points of view, those differences of opinion aired at the table. Another thing that ends up happening when these biases collide is, and it's in some ways the flip side of wanting to avoid embarrassment, you also don't want to embarrass others, so you're overly polite. Of course, what happens when those things happen? Someone raises a point in the meeting, someone else says, you know what? Let's just take it offline. You take it offline and you jam 30-minute meetings or discussions into the calendar until the entire calendar is full. Therefore, what ends up happening is there's no cognitive bandwidth of leadership to actually make good rational decisions in the face of new information. There's a collection of these things that we write about in the book that are It's a systems problem that we have to try to solve. And at the heart of the solution to that systems problem is, to put it as simply as possible, the willful injection of cognitive diversity into organizations. And there's a variety of different mechanisms to do that. And obviously, a lot of the book is spent on that. But that's ultimately the thing that can break the bad behavior, the well-intentioned bad behavior, but the bad behavior nonetheless of All of these natural human instincts coming to play together.

What Geoff described was embarrassment in meetings, the cognitive bandwidth of leadership that just doesn't have the bandwidth to spend on problems, the escalation of commitment. Once you decide something, you want to stick to that decision because of cognitive dissonance, the organization politeness that Geoff described, and then The lack of organizational curiosity because we don't fund exploratory budgets. So those are the 10, but as Geoff well said, it is a systems problem. It's not a single thing.

Hey, Alex Sanfilippo here, and I want to take a quick moment to intentionally serve the world with you. Here's what I want you to do. Think of the one person you know who would most benefit from listening to this episode today. Now, I want you to send it to them, but also include an encouraging note explaining why you share this episode with them specifically. By doing this, you're helping me grow this podcast and you're also adding value to the people you care about. With that said, thank you for your continued support. It means the world to me. And now let's get back to today's episode. I love that you just gave us that overview. Thank you, Steven and Geoff, also for covering A lot of the organizational tendencies as well there. And I like that you're saying that it's a systems problem. I think that many of the listeners are gonna say, okay, well, I'm, I'm still really small, so is this going to apply to me? And to that, I actually wanna share an answer, then have you guys talk about this. Interestingly enough, as I was reading this book and going through these 10 different things, I was able to pinpoint times in my corporate background where I, each of these things were a factor in me personally is my human bias, but also in the organization, like running into each of these things. I can reflect on different meetings, different conversations, different seasons where the companies that I was with just weren't growing. And then I, I started reflecting on my own organization, my new company. We're very small, and I can think back to when it was just me and the co-founder. We're the only 2 working on it, and none of these things applied. However, we added one person to the equation, and now I started seeing some of these, these issues come into play. And now we're at 7 people, and I can see a lot of 'em. It's because I've not been as intentional as I should be to, to, to be out of these things, which we'll get into in a minute. But does that make sense that from day one we should really start focusing on this stuff to make sure It doesn't just sneak into the organization.

Absolutely. I mean, a system can exist when you have— anytime you have more than one person involved, and that's in the vast majority of our interactions. And by the way, a lot of the stuff that we're talking about here, while not necessarily intended to be, you know, life's guide to how to behave, but it actually applies outside of work in other types of organizations, even in, for example, family organizations, as much as it does within Um, within the work setting.

Right. Yeah, that's a good point. And, uh, I used this quote last time we recorded and Steven really liked it. So I'm gonna go ahead and say it again because I thought it was great. But, uh, there's the old TV show G.I. Joe, and G.I. Joe would say, now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Knowing is half the battle.

It's, it's absolutely one of my favorite quotes. I wanted to share it because now that we know these different, these different biases that we walk into and the organizational tendencies, what, what can we do about them? And you guys call this the 5 Principles of Provocation. I'd love for you guys to walk into these things so we can start understanding what we can do to not let this happen in our newer organizations, or even begin transforming the organizations that we're part of.

To understand the 5 strategies for how to provoke, I think we have to start to introduce a concept of if to when. The problem we want to get ahead of is, we described the challenge of organizational blinders and not being able to see the world unfold holding in the face of considerable change. And the things that tend to be happening in the world are that a number of important trends that relate to a particular business or a particular problem are shifting from a matter of if they'll happen to a matter of when they'll happen. And one category of trends in that way is the democratization of information, for example. And that democratization of information is creating a bunch of new potential businesses. So think about businesses like Expedia, where the democratization of information led to different travel business models. Think about Zillow, where the democratization of information led to a different business in the real estate market. And so that's one category. There are all sorts of other things that technology is allowing, but it's a matter It's a matter of understanding the shift from when that trend goes from if to when. And depending on when you pick up that trend and that in that phase change, you could use different strategies. And oftentimes people ask us these strategies that Jeff is going to speak to, can I use multiple of them? The answer may be yes. They're not intended to be mutually exclusive, but they are intended to relate back to, is the trend still in the if phase? Or is it late in the when phase? As Geoff talks about it, we'll set up— you can use these 5 trends— sorry, these 5 strategies, but they relate to when you're acting.

Yeah, sure. I'll touch on them reasonably briefly, and then we can dig deeper if you'd like, Alex. The first one, and what I and I think Steve both think of as being the foundational— I'm going to just call them provocations. Steve called them strategies, but they are the modes in which we provoke, but really the foundational one that you really should do all the time, and I would advocate is increasingly a critical skill for any organization to have, is to look towards the future using scenarios and scenario planning as opposed to projections and predictions. And so we call that provocation or that strategy the envision strategy because ultimately We have to have the humility to understand that we're never going to get it right. In the face of uncertainty, we're not going to get our predictions right. What we need to do instead is flip the old approach to planning where you gather as much analysis as possible and you draw a projection with maybe some upside and downside sensitivities, but you draw a projection and you say, that's the future that's going to be. Flip that on its head and say, you know what? We don't know what the future is going to be, but we know enough about the vectors of uncertainty that we can create plausible, equally plausible versions of what the future might look like. And obviously, as the future unfolds, we'll get more and more information and we can, we can start to better predict what the future is going to be. But for now, as we envision, we just need to have equally plausible versions of the future. And without getting into the art of scenario planning, there's usually 4. And that's the, that's the foundation you need to have to be able to take any of the rest of the actions. Tightly tied to that, the second one is to position effectively. That is inherently an act of spreading your chips or placing your bets based on your relative belief of which of those plausible versions of the future you think is going to come true. Most of the time, there's a dominant version of the future that either you think is most likely or you're most hopeful will be the reality because it creates advantage for what you're trying to achieve.

Right.

But it's really important that You distribute the— I keep on saying chips. I'm thinking about betting in poker or betting in any wager that you distribute your capital in a way that you're actually accounting for even the lower likelihood outcomes. Obviously, as time rolls forward, and you get better information about what it looks like to go through that phase change from if to when, you'll shift your bets. Eventually, you get to a point where you can be very confident you should put the vast majority of your bets in a single version of the future. Positioning and constantly paying attention to the indicators and signposts around what future is going to come true is a critically important skill. I've covered 2 of the 5 so far, but I'm going to pause for a breath and see if you have any questions or comments on that, or see if Steve has anything to add, and then I can keep going.

We need to get you back in a casino, it sounds like, first off, right? Envision and position are the first 2, envision being the big one, the one that's the foundation of these things. On this idea of envision and thinking about the future, I think that a lot of fear comes with that. Like that, that's like where the fear comes to act because the future is very unknown until you do some planning. But even when you do plan, it's unlikely that you ever really get it. I mean, I don't know anyone who's ever really gotten it right. You just feel more confident in the potential of this is what could happen. But what do you say to somebody who's like, that sounds super scary. I don't want to move until I've planned my eyes out, right? Until like, I feel like I have a good strategy because you and I, we all know this, all 3 of us. The future's not certain. You never know what's going to end up happening, but what would you say to someone who's just bound by fear in that moment?

Well, I'd start with, it's always better to have thought about it and considered it in advance than for it to be thrust upon you. If behaving like an ostrich and putting your head in the— burying your head in the sand is a strategy, that's the moral equivalent of that. I think what we're saying is that Look, there may be some low probability events, but those can have, as we've all learned through COVID, those can have incredibly profound implications. And the implication of never having considered it or talked about it means that you're likely to be paralyzed if that ever comes to fruition. So this is about being prepared. This is about seeing the adjacent possible and what might— and how you might be able to create some of those features that would be to your advantage. So I think oftentimes people see risk in considering it, but actually the risk is not considering it. And that's the message we want to send.

Yeah. And though this may sound a little flip, I'd say, what exactly are you scared of? The rules have changed here. We're no longer in a world where you need to get absolutely right or relatively absolutely right, the future that you're going to place all your bets against, and you're out of luck if it doesn't end up happening. What we're saying is, just accept the fact that we don't know. The only thing we can be 100% sure about is we're not going to get the projection right. Instead, what we're doing is we're considering alternatives, and we will have an opportunity to shift our bets and shift the way that we believe the future is going to unfold as we get more information. That doesn't mean sit back and just wait for it to happen. Go and try to influence the outcome in a way that actually creates a future you're trying to create.

Love it. It's a great call to action.

Alex, the first 2, envision and position, are started when the trend still is in the if phase. Envision goes all the way. You should be doing that throughout your time. But position can start as early as the if phase. I think the drive, activate, and adapt, which Geoff can describe in a second, are all as you start to enter that phase change from the if starting to look like it's becoming a matter of when.

Yeah. Yeah. So anyone that ends up looking at the book will hopefully see the visuals that I'm referring to here. We draw that if-to-when phase change as almost looking like a roller coaster of sorts, where there's a peak around the phase change, and then you— and actually, we use the roller coaster analogy to talk about the release of kinetic energy once you crest the peak. But, you know, as we're getting closer and closer to the reality that something that was a question of if is now going to be a question of when, that's where we need to flip from envisioning and positioning and constantly micro-adjusting our various different bets to taking action in some way. Our argument, or our stipulation in the book is that there are 3 categories of actions that you can take once you enter that phase change, and it's now a question of when, that you need to choose from, and you choose depending on the degree of influence you have over creating the future that you want to see, and the complexity of the series of moves you need to make through the system in order to bring that future about. Okay, so the first one I'll talk about here is, is, is we just call it drive, where you're driving the future that you want to be able to see happen, because you have a high degree of influence over it being able to happen. And you have a reasonably clear line of sight to the moves that need to occur in order for that outcome to be achieved. And I'll, I'll do a warm call on Steve and ask him to think about some of the examples from our book or others for each one of these when I'm, when I'm done describing them. But So that's the, that's the drive move. The second of the 3 different options once you enter the phase change is to adapt, and that's in some ways the opposite to drive, where you actually don't have much influence over the way the future unfolds. And it may or may not be a clear line of sight, but pretty much any way you look at it, it's not going to end up being good for your existing business model. And therefore you need to adapt in some way, and in some ways this is the most emotionally difficult of the provocations because it says, it requires an executive to say, you know what, what's gotten us here is not going to work anymore. And I just need to either, in the most extreme version of it, wind down the company and figure out how to salvage my assets in a way that I can return some money to shareholders, or I need to pivot in a way where I can better work in the future that is going to unfold. But I think Each of these is in some ways equally interesting, but there is an opportunity to create advantage if you adapt well and you adapt early enough. The big mistake that a lot of people make is just waiting too long. I think we talked last time, Alex, that I do a lot of my work in the energy space these days, and it's very interesting to me to observe as we go through the energy transition, and this is another one of those ones where I think we passed from it being a question of if we're going to shift our primary energy sources over the course of the next 50 years to it being a question of when and how. But it's really interesting to me to see some of the incumbent energy companies, whether they're oil and gas players or utility players or what have you, seem to want to hold on to their business model for as long as possible. Because they actually believe that— and you hear different things from different companies about why they're doing that. But, you know, it's interesting to see that the array of different moves that different executives and different executive teams are making within the same industry. Some are being bold and really trying to adapt, and some would argue adapting too quickly. Some are sitting back and waiting for the future to happen to them. But that's the adapt provocation.

Something I learned in that real quick, just to jump in there, was that you can actually kind of use some of these things together. At least I found that because after reading your book, I realized that I needed to adapt in a certain way, like a certain segment of our business needed to change. Something needed to change on it. And by making that change, we were actually able to go into drive instead. So, we were able to shift, to make this change, which took some humility on my part and the rest of the business. But as soon as we made that, we saw instant results and then we were able to drive into to help the industry even change after seeing that happen. So for me directly, like I actually saw this firsthand.

I think you're spot on. And it's actually like it's one of 2 really important, if you will, level 201 versions of how to interpret what we wrote about in Provoke. But let me tell you about the 5th provocation and then I'll come back to that. So the 5th one is one we call Activate. And I think both of us believe that increasingly this is going to be a mode that All companies need to, need to consider and be able to work in. And the notion of activating is about activating others to work with you, not necessarily on your behalf, but in the same direction that you'd like to be going, even sometimes when you're not able to call the shots, where you need to activate others in an ecosystem to catalyze some sort of outcome elsewhere. in whatever business you are serving, because you are confident enough about the path forward, even if you do not know exactly what the system's knock-on effect needs to be to achieve the future you are trying to create. As we— I am sure all of your listeners understand that we are increasingly living in a world that is governed by ecosystems and actions by ecosystems, as opposed to individual dominant players. As that becomes true, we have to get better and better at attracting others to us and catalyzing the types of outcomes that will be good for us and for the others that we play with. Counterintuitively, sometimes those others that we play with may be people or may be companies that we've historically thought about as being competitors. It's a very unnatural move for many companies, but it's an absolutely necessary one. We go through each one of these, as I know you know, in much more detail in the book and bring them to life through real stories, et cetera. The 2 things I want to just end this part of the conversation on goes back to the comment you made before, and it is the advanced interpretation and activation of some of the ideas in this. The first is, you are never just picking one move at any given point in time. You have got to be ready to make use of the full portfolio of all 5 of these things at different points in your journey. Sometimes, Some of the vectors you're headed down are just going to require one type of provocation, one type of move, and it's a reasonably straightforward solution. But I think exactly as you discovered, Alex, as you— as you take action and you shift the trajectory of the future, then what you decide to do is going to shift as well. And we all have to be facile at being able to make those shifts. The second is— and Steve and I sometimes run into the issue of sounding sufficiently confident in what we're saying, that we're saying it's a zero-sum game, and you've got to go and change everything and every single way that you're operating. The reality is you can't, and it would be a bad idea to go and shift everything simultaneously and to act, some would say impulsively, on every single decision you have to make. We have to live through some period of balance. My guess is that period is going to last for a very long time where The old rules apply at the same time that the new rules are applying. The best provocateurs are those that can understand when to strike that balance and when to do more analysis and wait for the signals to come from the world to give us confidence to move versus act and provoke the future that we want to try to create.

I love that. So well said from both of you guys. Geoff and Steven, I really appreciate you guys coming on the podcast. I'm glad after the 4th attempt here, we actually made it happen. We hit record. This is going to actually go out for everyone to be able to, to hear. So I appreciate both of you taking the time to make this happen today.

Thanks for having us.

Thanks for the time, Alex. It was fun.

These guys are brilliant. I shared a lot of stories throughout this conversation about how I saw many of the points that they made played out in my corporate life. And now that I'm full-time my own startup, I've actually began seeing some of these tendencies and flaws start to slip in. Now, thankfully, I'm aware of them and I'm going to take action to make sure that I can lead my business into the future that I desire. And I hope that you are inspired and challenged to do the same in your own personal life and in your organization. Geoff and Stephen, thank you so much for coming on the podcast and sharing your wisdom to help us all become better leaders and positively impact the future change we desire. For a link to pick up Geoff Tuff and Stephen Goldbach's book, Provoke, please visit creatingabrand.com/128. Thank you as always for listening. I'm looking forward to bringing you another MasterClass episode next week. Week.