What Anyone Can Do: On Leading Teams (1041)

Welcome to our new show, What Anyone Can Do Podcast, with Leo Bottari and me, Randy Cantrell. Our new show picks up where the last show, Year of the Peer, left off, highlighting the simple truth that who you surround yourself with matters, and that if we enlist the support of others, give back to those who give to us, and pay it forward for the next generation, we can do anything. Author and keynote speaker Leo Bottari and I will interview a diverse group of thought leaders who will share stories and insights that will help you succeed in business, and in life. How? By doing the things anyone can do, but most of us never will. Welcome back to a new episode of What Anyone Can Do, the podcast. My name is Randy Cantrell, coming to you from Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. He is Leo Bottari, coming to you from San Diego, California. And today there's a piece that Leo, that you just wrote, appeared in CEO World, worthy of discussion. Tell us more.

Well, I just thought it was a fun question. I know the idea, and I've been asked it a lot over the years, I'm sure you have as well, and I'm sure that you probably thought of it. In terms of a leader. And the idea is, as a leader, do you consider yourself a part of the team or apart from it? Right? So does the leader consider themselves separate just because these are kind of the players, these are the team members, or do they actually consider themselves as being part of the team? So, um, in the article I did give an example, um, which I won't talk about quite yet, but I, cause I'd like to just grapple with the question a little bit first, but I also brought in some of Dave Logan's Slogan's work into the article as well about tribal leadership. Because when you consider the cultures that he say basically dominate the workplace today, they are his stage 1, 2, and 3, which is the life sucks culture, which as you imagine is not very ideal workplace culture, which he in fact equates it to that of a prison gang, you know, about 2% of companies. Uh, another quarter percent of companies he refers to and the authors, um, Dave is one of the co-authors, they refer to as the my life sucks culture. So the idea is that your life might be fine, but mine, no, not so good. My approach to work is pretty much to do as little as humanly possible to keep my job. And that's about it. Um, and you know, I'm the one just constantly looking at like, is it 5 o'clock yet? And wearing the t-shirt or walking around with the coffee mug, which is, What's up for the weekend? You know, that kind of, not exactly a commitment to excellence. Right. Um, the third culture he brings up is stage 3, which is the I'm great. And the implication of the I'm great culture is that of the leader is saying I'm great. And by definition, you're not. Uh, so, and interestingly enough, that's 49% of companies have this command and control, leader who just thinks they're the be-all end-all. They're great. Other people are good, but they're just never going to be as good as whoever's running the company. And you end up with a lot of just dyad relationships with the leader as opposed to the creation of any kind of team environment. Well, when you add those up alone, that's 76% of workplaces out there, which I think is rather frightening. Right. Um, Of course, the two other cultures, which we don't really get into in the article so much, but we do refer to them, is the we're great culture, where all of a sudden now you start having people really function and believe that they are a team, but they measure themselves against other teams typically in their industry sector. So they want to be the best at making shoes. They want to be the best at building homes. They, whatever it happens to be, They want to be the best in their industry sector. And that's kind of how they measure themselves against others. The final stage 5 culture that he has, which he said is enjoyed by 2% of companies, basically nobody lives in this space. You kind of toggle between 4 and 5, but it's the life is great culture. These companies don't typically measure themselves against their competitors. They set their own standard of excellence. They look beyond their industry sector. They look at, You know, all of it, you know. And so, um, when you look at that and you see, you know, what I would regard as 76% of the cultures out there where the leader is, plays a role that's apart from the team, that it's actually separate from the team. It's like, here's what I do and here's what you do. And here's who to blame when you guys don't do whatever it is, uh, you're supposed to be doing as part of your job. Or the other 24% of companies that I think fall into the category where the leader is a part of the team, at least from the perspective of they are in there with the team and they are modeling behaviors that they want team members to exhibit and be part of the culture, right? So they don't try to instill a culture in the company that they're not living themselves or they're not part of, or they think they're separate or part of a different set of rules. They're right in there with everyone else. And so that's kind of what the piece covers largely. But, um, I did think it was kind of an interesting question just to chat about today, because I think as leaders, when you get leaders together, they start asking questions like that among themselves and they get perspective on what that looks like and how different someone else can think about it.

What do you think are the challenges for, say, a CEO or a business owner as they're wrestling with that question of considering themselves part of the team, of just their, their view of the role? Clearly the role that they have is different. Sure. So you can, you can clearly, you can have a different, a number of different roles, but still all be on the same team. It seems to me in the practical, in the wild, there's a challenge there. There's a challenge for somebody who feels, especially for a leader, and it certainly is more, I think it's probably, there's greater propensity for it in a true hierarchy for a person to feel like they are separate and apart from the team because their role is different.

Yeah. I think there's a difference between the levels that can exist in being a part of or apart from. So one example might be like a basketball coach on a team. So is that coach part of the team? Well, certainly he's part of the team, uh, leads the team. There's the coaching staff, there's the trainers, there's everyone who's involved in making sure that they create the best situation possible for the players on the floor. To be in a position to win. Right? So that's all one big team. Now, you could also argue that the players on the floor, because they're the ones out there, they have a special bond with one another because they share that challenge of what it's like to be there and have to compete at that level. So there's no question, I think, that there are different levels. But at the same time, a coach who considers themselves part of the team also is making sure that when he or she is asking the players and asks a lot of them and challenges them quite a bit in terms of their effort and practice and what they do and what they do in the offseason and all that, that leader is very cognizant of modeling behaviors that support that. So in other words, when you look at the Muffet McGraws and the Gina Auriemas of the world in women's college basketball, you go to the men's game, you know, same thing. You look at some of the top coaches, right? Where their work, no matter how successful they've been, no matter how many championships they've won, how long they've been doing it, they put in a level of effort all the time that I think really blows the players away. Like, they can't believe, you know, how much time they spend watching film or out spending time with players or, or learning brand new concepts, even though they've been doing it for 30 years, watching other coaches. Everything that goes into just that small little edge that helps make them a better coach. And the expectation there is, if I'm watching the best in the game constantly trying to raise their game, then that's gotta be good enough for me as well. And I think this is where there's such power in at least seeing yourself in whatever way possible as part of the team. And making sure that you're setting that kind of example.

I think blame— I mean, one of the things that comes to my mind in these discussions about this particular topic is the propensity of a leader to want to have a backdoor that they can escape from so that they can point a finger and lay blame, as opposed to those leaders that are courageous enough, humble enough to step forward and make a declaration, that's on me. And I'm thinking of the tactical differences. Herb Brooks, the famous coach of the USA hockey team, the stories, and it's been well chronicled, of these guys who were— they needed to band together. And knowing his role and his part in the team, made a conscious decision to make them hate him. Yes, they needed, they needed a common foe in a team setting. They're all on the same team, but he did it, he did it for their good, for their benefit.

Now, just because, and I think this is true, that he played the role of making sure that they hated him. In other words, he was— you, you recall in the movie, which I thought was really well done, when they're asked, who are you, to introduce yourself, or who you're in there talking about. Okay, I'm Jim Craig, Boston University, and I'm someone else from Minnesota and some, you know, all of these guys. And it was after they had lost that exhibition hockey game. And he's got them doing these drills into when the rink is closed and everything else. He's telling the guy to leave him the keys. And these guys are completely destroyed and wiped out. And finally, at least the way they tell it in the movie, was that Ruzioni steps up when he's asked, who are you? What's your name? And he says, Michael Ruzioni. And it was Team USA. And it was the first time that— and then they ended that because the point was made then that they are all together now. It's not the kids from the Midwest and the kids from the Northeast. It was like one team. Now, interestingly though, even though he played the foe there, there was also an element of them believing that this guy could coach them to an Olympic medal. That to take on, no matter how much they hated Herb Brooks, they also had to believe that they could beat the Soviets. And that is no, that was no—

It was no small thing.

No small thing back then. I mean, really, let's, we all know if they played that game 100 times, they would have lost 99 other games. Right? They did something on one night, and that was basically what, you know, he said to them. He said, you know what, on any given night, and it just won't be tonight.

Right.

Right. They'll win. And it was an extraordinary thing. But I think he was very much saw himself a part of the team. Now he played a role that he knew he had to play because again, there were different levels and these guys who were on the ice had to bond in a way that was different from where they were if they were ever going to have a chance to win. But, and I think it also really demonstrates that when you can get a team committed to one another as they were, how powerful they could be and how strong they can be. Right. Anything.

Speak to the— because it just The whole, the whole question just sort of reeks of, and I don't much like the term because to me it's redundant, you know, the whole servant leadership.

Yeah.

I honestly don't know of any other kind personally. I've never practiced any other kind. It's the only way that, and thankfully I had some really good mentors early on, but there are other kinds. Yeah, there are other kinds and I get it. Effective kinds. You know, I mean, for me, it was just— I just knew that with authority came the ability to knock down roadblocks that would get in the way of people performing better. And toward that end of the whole concept of a leader serving the team in a way that perhaps nobody else can— well, clearly nobody else can. I'm reminded, of course, here in Dallas, you know, Jimmy Johnson Famous, famous coach of the Cowboys. He was notoriously— and here's a guy that had a degree in organizational psychology, so he knew what he was doing, but you know, players slack off, poor performance, bad game day, and was notorious for Monday morning cutting players back in the day when coaches kind of sort of did that.

Like Belichick does it now.

Yeah, exactly. Good point. You know, but There was a case where, and I can't remember the player, but fell asleep in a meeting and he cuts him and was asked later, you know, if that would have been Aikman. And he said, you know, there's a difference between equal and fair. If it would have been Aikman, I would have just gone up and said, Troy, Troy, wake up, you know. So, and yet part of the my point of all that is to say this, serving the team in whatever way as a leader you can to facilitate the highest possible performance from a Jimmy Johnson doing that to Herb Brooks, to a Bill Belichick. These are all sports, sports analogies, I realize, but those are, those seem to be the easier ones, you know, for visible performing teams to everybody.

So I think these sports analogies are, you know, very illustrative in many respects, right? And we see these teams, we watch the high level at which they perform. We watch teams at the beginning of the season and what they look like by the time it's the Super Bowl or the World Series or whatever, it's night and day. And this is something that happens over the course of the year. We also see that when they come back the next season, it's not all, let's pick up right where we left off because it took us a long time to get to that spot.

And, um, yeah, but I think these leaders, you know, they, they, they're part of the team. They clearly know that they have a distinct different role, but they're fully vested in the outcome of the team, which is why they, they behave. Belichick does what he does with great— I think with great intent and purpose. Now, other people can look at him, especially the people that that hate their legacy and hate their dynasty and say, you know what, he's a tyrant.

Well, they've interviewed Brady many times and Brady said, look, I'm not going to, you know, tell you that I fear for my job week to week, but I will tell you this. If I didn't perform enough weeks in a row, I'd find myself on the— I mean, he's convinced of that. Like, in other words, there's no, there's no resting on the Tom Brady legacy regardless of how many Super Bowls you've been to, because it's all about what are you doing for me on Sunday. And, you know, he's gonna put the best guy on the field that he believes is gonna help him on Sunday.

The fact that Belichick is, is, is definitely considers him part of the team enables him to serve Tom Brady. It could easily be argued that Would Tom Brady be Tom Brady without Bill Belichick? We'll never know, but it'd be easy for me to surmise probably not.

Oh, and vice versa. You know, I mean, this is where you see where, and I think you used a great term. I mean, servant leadership really is the key here, right? And the clear distinction between that and your command and control leader is the command and control leader is typically the leader who is leading a team for their own, you know, success and ego and self-aggrandizement, where a servant leader is there simply to make the team perform at the highest level and is all about serving, not so much directing and commanding. So when it comes to, you know, being that servant leader and making sure that your team has all of the resources necessary, and that's including knowing your employees or knowing your players well enough to know that there are some players that will respond to certain types of feedback, if you will, that needs to be delivered in a way to some people versus others, right? What's going to really, quote, motivate versus inspire, or whatever you want to use for the term, both being quite different, of course. But it's I think that's really very much what that's all about. And you also brought up a great point too, when it comes to responsibility. I think leaders who are part of the team accept responsibility for the team's performance, good or bad. And that's really critical. And it's the leader that takes the hit, particularly when they lose. The leader will talk about, I didn't have them ready. I didn't have, you know, I didn't do the kinds of things that I needed to do to put this team in a position to win. They were good enough to do it. And maybe they were, and they immediately kind of see their role in that. It's not unlike what we've talked about in terms of communication. I think any great leader sees communication as the responsibility of the sender, not the receiver. If the receiver didn't quite get the instructions correctly, they're not blaming them for misunderstanding. They're blaming themselves for not having verified that there was absolute clarity about what the instructions were all about.

You know, is— and, and I got— I had the luxury of, of seeing the article before, before it went live. And I don't know, another one of the first things that, that kind of popped into my mind was the assumption of a leader. I mentioned this before, to just look for blame. It's just stunning to me how many people will throw their own people under the bus and yet seem to lose sight of the fact that they or one of their direct reports brought these people in, provided whatever training was necessary, for these people. I was talking with a business owner the other day and I made a suggestion. And this is not a person who's got a ton of direct reports, a handful. And I just merely asked the question, when was the last time that you spent 15 minutes with each one, just one-on-one? And he couldn't remember.

Right.

And I'm thinking, you know, well, there's your answer. You know, I didn't ask him this question, but if I would have— I didn't have to ask him. I mean, you've got your answer in how different people just view being apart from the team or being part of it.

I think too, we all play a role in not allowing people to get away with that. I can't tell you because it's such a pet peeve of mine in recent years, how many times where something has happened in a customer service standpoint and someone starts blaming somebody else. They immediately start pointing fingers and I'm like, I stop them right in that moment. Like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Tell me that that just didn't come out of your mouth right now. And it's almost like, you know, but when you stop people from doing that, from that natural inclination to just kind of want to throw it on someone else who isn't part of the conversation, typically it isn't even there, can't defend themselves, can't, you know, or doesn't recognize that their role as a leader Is that their part of this too? It's, yeah, we can't and shouldn't allow that. When we see people do that in meetings, I don't care what level they are, what they're doing, it should really just be unacceptable. I mean, the—

and it was interesting, it was interesting to me, and you had written some about this in, in The Power of Peers, in the research that that you had done this information that, you know, that Dave Logan had come up with and the article, and we'll put a link in the show notes to the article, but the leadership triad, talk to us a little bit about that triad.

Yeah. So when you look at the typical command and control leadership model, it's like the all-powerful leader here. And then there's all the little dyad relationships with the members here with not a lot going on between them. When we think about the task at hand, right, could be results, it could be responsibility for the workplace culture, could be engagement, could be alignment, it could be anything. What you start to see is that when you've got a leader, when you have a team, and then you have a member of that team, you start getting a sense that everyone shares responsibility in making sure that we achieve the results. You know, you've got a, you know, a weak player on the team, it's going to compromise results. If you've got a culture on your team that's toxic or whatever, it's going to compromise the results. If you have a leader that's not doing their job to support the team, you're not going to get done what you're looking to get done. So the idea of the triad is to not have the leader as someone we look to and look whether it's up to, across to, it doesn't matter where they are, right? But we're not always looking to them for all of our joy and productivity and everything else you can think of. That I as an individual, that we as team members working together, that we own pieces of that. And oftentimes during the workshops I've done with CEO groups or the, I provide them with decks also where they can facilitate similar, uh, group/team assessment back at their organizations. When they start having these conversations and asking them questions, um, about all this stuff, I mean, the feedback they get, it was incredible what they learned about what's in their heads and how they own so much of what they're there to do. You start seeing a shift actually from people who at the beginning of the meeting who are looking to the leader to at the end when actually the last question that I have the leader in the workshop ask is, how can I support you further in getting done what you all need to get done to help make you more productive, to help you know, in any way I possibly can and have them leave the room for a while and let them have that conversation. Well, as a fly on the wall in some of those conversations, um, someone will say, hey, I think the leader should do this. And someone else should say, we'll say, I think the leader should do that. And what happens is you get 3 or 4 people pouncing on them saying, whoa, wait a second. That's not them. That's us. That's our responsibility. So you get this little journey that takes place kind of subconsciously in many respects that is someone who, A, starts taking ownership, and, and B, really starts believing that we as a group have real responsibility. It becomes a very unifying exercise, but then it also becomes very helpful because it allows them to focus on the things that the leader can really do to just— and sometimes they're often really small things that can just help raise Everybody's game. And when that happens, it's pretty neat.

Well, I think the elephant in the room, at least in my view, is the worldview, the viewpoint, the perspective, and the behavior of that leader. I mean, from these sports analogies to the countless corporate situations that I can think of where the way that the leader behaved whatever behavior they modeled, hopefully appropriately, the kind of behavior that they wanted to facilitate among the group, that when they do that, magic can happen. But boy, when they don't, it's tough sledding.

Well, and unfortunately it fails a lot. And I don't know how or why it is that these failures get written off or swept under the rug or whatever. But when you start looking, at the success rate, or the, I should say really the failure rate of strategic initiatives across companies, depending on the research you're looking at, it's anywhere from 65 to 90%. I mean, think about that. That's horrifying. How is that allowed? You know, when you consider, you know, what's at stake, you know, for—

Yeah, we won't tolerate anything short of 100% accuracy when we go through in a McDonald's, you know, and yet you'll tolerate that and millions and millions and billions of dollars lost in the process, not to mention all the hearts and minds that are lost.

I remember a bank CEO one time delivering a speech about getting something like 99.9% correct. And they said, what do you think about that? Do you think that's pretty good? Everyone's like, yeah, it's pretty damn good. That's awesome. And he said, well, I want you to consider this. So let's say that landings and takeoffs with airplanes airplanes were 99.9%, right? Success. You would have like the airline crash channel on television. You're just watching them go down by the minute. If you think globally about what that would look like. So yeah, there's, there's, um, thank God.

Right. Well, and this is not, you know, this is not nearly as sophisticated as flying or landing an aircraft. I mean, this is just, this is human behavior. This is just leaders getting their head wrapped around the notion of why they're there and how much that they can impact the group, the group's ability to reach a higher level of productivity.

But it's not, you know, their fault in many respects too. And when you think the way the system is set up, It's, it's, we talk team, we talk all this kind of stuff, but the bottom line is you get your individual performance review, you get bonus based on your personal performance, you get all this kind of stuff. And the team stuff too often doesn't align with all the awards, rewards, all of everything that goes with that is not about it. So there's less of an incentive, unfortunately. For people to be all about the team and all about trusting the Force, Luke, you know, if you will. Right. And, and I think that that's tricky. And so the kind of alignment that can take place in companies where what they're really saying and what they're living really align so that people get a sense that here's the type of person you have to be to be successful here. And here's what this looks like. And here's what's gonna be asked of you. And, you know, being a part of that team and being in some respects selfless part of that team will be essential to that team really getting to a great place. We talk about the US Olympic hockey team back in 1980. If every one of those guys wanted to be the leading scorer, You know, think about it, right? I mean, how badly that would have gone. They'd have been out in the first round of the tournament. So I think when we all can recognize the strengths of all the people on our team, work together, trust one another, you know, there's a lot that can happen. And unfortunately, you know, too many workplaces where you don't have that trust. And imagine it I had someone approach me the other day and said, boy, could our executive leadership team use what you just did with our group today. And you imagine that, right? So you've got all these people, the top people in the company, who this person admitted they can't really work together very well, right? But yet it goes on and on and on.

So it's a way of life.

Well, and it costs people. You know, because, you know, 6 months from now, a year from now, when they have to lay people off, they would do something because they're kind of the leadership team can't get it together. And that's, that's unacceptable. And they're getting paid a fortune, by the way, on top of that.

So, you know, it's right, or it's a good way to lose good people that you could have retained.

Yeah. Yeah.

So anyway, update us a little bit. You just, you just made a trip. I don't want to, I don't want to end today's show without kind of catching up and whatever, whatever insights or, or cool things you want to share about your last trip.

Yeah, just a couple things. I was up in Vancouver, which was really my— I've been through the airport but never really into the city, believe it or not. And I loved Vancouver. I mean, it was amazing. I'd want to go back there for a second for a long weekend.

I've never been. I've always wanted to.

That was great. It was a super city. I was stayed down at a hotel right along the seawall area there. I got up at 5:30 one morning. I actually shared a bunch of the photos on Instagram from just going out for a run that morning and how beautiful it was. I mean, it was stunning. So it was just a great, great thing. Loved that. Really enjoyed— I worked with the Tech Canada, uh, uh, key group, key executive group there and had a great time with them. Very enjoyable, um, you know, experience, spent the whole morning. with that group. And it was just great to see. It was a very active group, asked a lot of questions, were really engaged. And anytime you've got that, it's always a lot of fun. Uh, then the following day I went down and actually spent a little time with Jennifer Vessels and we talked a lot about Executive Growth Alliance in general, but obviously largely on the conference coming up in Oslo, um, August 28th. And, you know, really excited about that basically. Uh, You know, and we had another bit of a Zoom conference call this morning with the other speakers. There's 5 of us basically who will be on the agenda there, not only just delivering our own kind of mini keynotes, if you will, but then also serving on a panel and getting everyone, you know, really engaged in talking about, you know, just the power of collaboration and how necessary it's going to be to be future ready. Which is really what this conference is all about. And future readiness isn't, of course, just about innovation. It's about just being prepared, right, in general for a lot of different eventualities. And that requires people to step out of the day-to-day in their business and challenges leaders, I think, to really look ahead and not just out but around. Them to see and understand what's really going on in this world. And to do that, you need to connect with people who understand all of those various sectors that have an impact on really everything that we do. And sometimes in ways that we don't even realize. And, but the more we get exposed to that and the more that we kind of get our head out of the sand and work together in that way, So it's very much of a trust culture in Norway. So that's one of the great things, you know, about it. Norway does a lot of things right. And it'll be interesting to let them know or talk a lot about this idea that it's possible that what has worked up to now may not be enough in the next 5, 10, 20 years. And that's a difficult thing when someone is doing well. Um, you have a lot of companies, you have a whole nation, you've got a lot of things that are going really well right now. And so this is probably the most difficult time to ever believe that you've got to start seeing the world differently and maybe making changes in the, the way you do things in response to that. Because we're all feeling like, hey, this has been great, this is working, this is— we're all coming along, we're doing our thing. But oftentimes, by the time you see it coming and now all of a sudden you've got to pivot, sometimes it can be too late. So yeah, but it's gonna be great, great time. It's gonna be just the people I was on the conference call with this morning too, in addition to time with Jennifer. It's just going to be such a learning experience for everybody there, I think. Speakers, participants, everybody's just really going to get a lot.

Yeah, yeah, I'm looking forward to the stories you'll have to share after that. Well, if you want to keep up with Leo's schedule, keep up with, with the new initiative, Peer Innovation, and go to leobottary.com. That's L-E-O-B-O-T-T-A-R-Y dot com. And I'll let you take us out, Leo.

Yeah, no, just absolutely. If, you know, peer innovation has been really exciting. As you know, we're already start getting calls from folks who have a real interest in, in what we're doing, both in the learning and development space and in the setting up peer group space and really looking at not how peer groups are managed the way they see them now, but looking at models and talking to us about ways to do it that I think are a better fit for what they're looking at going forward. They see the value of it. They want to make the barrier to entry both from a, um, time standpoint, which I think is first and foremost, and then secondly, uh, financial, of course. But the time commitment can be huge. And I think what they want to do is How can we get a value from our peers that we can't get now, or we either don't have time for, or can't afford, or we live in rural areas, or we travel too much, or a host of other reasons why being a reliable participant in an in-person peer group doesn't work for them? And again, it's a bit of a different value proposition as well. Right. It doesn't replace what an in-person group does every month. I think that's a whole different value that people get from that. But if you can't do that, but you see that there's value in working with your peers and maybe even connecting with peers that aren't necessarily in your geographic area, but who could deliver the kind of perspective on things that leave could give you value, this is where this starts to make sense for a lot of folks. And so that's what we're doing. And we're having fun so far. Yeah.

Consume and experience the way that you want to, which is the world that we're in. I mean, you can read a book or you can buy the Audible version.

Speaking of Audible, August 13th, What Anyone Can Do, the audiobook will be available. So there you go. It's not only what anyone could do, you don't even have to know how to read. Good shape.

Yeah, exactly. Earbuds. It's great. We'll put links in the show notes to the article. Uh, I'll even let, we'll even link up Leo's Instagram so that you can, uh, you can follow his, uh, his journeys and links to frequent, but yeah, links, links to the article as well that we referred to. The title of the article, by the way, was As the Leader, Are You Part of Your Team or Apart? From it? And it's a great question. If you are a leader, we would, we would challenge you to ask yourself that question and wrestle it down and come to terms. leobottery.com is the website. Thanks for listening.

All right, have a great one.

You too. To learn more about our show and what we do, to submit questions to us, and to subscribe to What Anyone Can Do Podcast, please visit our website, whatanyonecando.com. What Anyone Can Do Podcast is hosted by Leo Buttari and and me, Randy Cantrell. Music provided by Kevin MacLeod is Vibe Ace, licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0 license. Thanks for watching or listening. We hope you'll share the podcast.