0:00:00.0 Junior: A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that in workplaces where employees feared being judged or punished for mistakes, turnover rates are 25% to 30% higher than in companies with a culture of trust and safety.

0:00:12.9 Tim: We need to ask and answer one question for ourselves, and that is, are we in a safe environment or an unsafe environment? The answer will govern our behavior.

0:00:21.5 Junior: Organizations want innovative organizations, but then they start behaving in a way that disincentivizes the type of behavior that produces innovation.

0:00:31.3 Tim: How are we going to do that when the feedback loop has been cut off?

0:00:37.0 Junior: What does fear do? It increases turnover. It reduces creativity. We repress our ideas in those environments. It impairs cognitive function and it increases burnout. How does the organization look when all of those things are true?

0:00:49.8 Tim: You as a leader are not going to change biology. Innovation happens at the intersection of different disciplines and functions. It's when we come together.

0:01:00.0 Junior: We're social animals and what don't we like? We don't like to lose social standing. We don't like to feel insecure, especially relative to other people.

0:01:08.2 Tim: This is a relevant conversation in every organization.

[music]

0:01:20.3 Junior: Human biology kills organizations. How? Because you keep pressing the fear button. The fear button is what we're going to be talking about today, the biology of humans, and how those two things interplay to kill an organization. Tim, how you doing?

0:01:39.0 Tim: I'm doing great. And this is a relevant conversation in every organization.

0:01:43.8 Junior: It is. I wanna start off today with a bit of an anecdote.

0:01:48.0 Tim: Okay.

0:01:48.7 Junior: About 10 years ago, I was on an engineering team, and this engineering team was in charge of software support and implementation for a whole bunch of remote campuses across close to a dozen different countries. And I was relatively new in the role. Everyone around me was pretty tenured. And I remember showing up to one of the first cross-functional executive style meetings that we had.

0:02:13.5 Tim: So you're kind of a rookie.

0:02:14.9 Junior: I'm a total rookie. I'm very green. And I think that this is where we come and share ideas and talk about how to make things better. So I come prepared with something that I had been testing for a couple of months, which was a new implementation plan with some new hardware and some new software to help in live training environments. And so I come to this meeting prepared with my suggestion. And I started off pretty lightly. When it's my turn to present and I say, here's my idea. This is what I'm thinking. And very quickly I'm shut down by someone who five times my tenure and twice my age. Who says, oh yeah, we tried that before. It didn't work. Next.

0:03:03.9 Tim: Let's move on.

0:03:04.9 Junior: Let's move on. We got a lot to go through today.

0:03:06.9 Tim: So summarily dismissed you.

0:03:09.6 Junior: Yeah.

0:03:10.4 Tim: Okay.

0:03:11.4 Junior: And so I remember sitting there like, oh, okay. I did something that I shouldn't have done. I guess I'll just be quiet. And that left a really big impression on me.

0:03:24.0 Tim: What is that impression going to leave?

0:03:26.2 Junior: Yeah. Well, what they didn't understand is that I had done quite a bit of due diligence. The hardware, since they had tried it last had changed. The software had changed, the whole model had changed, the costs had changed. And what I was going to propose probably would've been an 80% cost savings in this piece of what we were doing, which to me was a big deal. But that project never saw the light of day. And that experience summarizes a lot of what we're going to be talking about today about the fear button. You ever had an experience like that?

0:04:02.3 Tim: Oh, many times. Junior. So personally, but then of course, it's a common pattern throughout organizations. It absolutely is a relevant topic for everyone listening and watching today.

0:04:18.8 Junior: Well, the premise of the whole situation is that organizations want innovative organizations. They want consistent innovation. They want predictable innovation. I've yet to encounter an organization that didn't want that. And that's what I thought that my organization at the time wanted. And it's what they said they wanted, but then they start behaving in a way that disincentivizes the type of behavior that produces innovation. So the first slide that we wanna go to is one sentence here. Consistent innovation is a cultural outcome more than a technical one.

0:04:55.3 Tim: That's true, Junior. Because innovation is a team sport. It requires interaction, it requires collaboration. And consistent innovation means that that's a cultural condition that's prevailing in the organization and allowing people to interact in a way that allows, creates that incubator for innovation.

0:05:20.7 Junior: At the beginning of your career, would you have said that innovation was more cultural than technical?

0:05:24.1 Tim: Probably not. I don't think I understood it that way. I thought it was more about intellectual horsepower, technical expertise, experience, knowledge, skills, which it is. But then we have to come together because innovation happens at the intersection of different disciplines and functions. It's when we come together. And that's why we need to be able to collaborate and share and go through discovery together.

0:05:58.7 Junior: Yeah. Well, it's interesting because this may seem very straightforward. Now it's just this one sentence, innovation, culture more than technical. This is counter what most people believe. My background's in competitive strategy, competitive strategists. This is not the first thing that they're gonna say about innovation.

0:06:22.5 Tim: No. They're gonna give you a bunch of conceptual tools and... Right?

0:06:27.9 Junior: Well, that's precisely what I did. And so in my introduction into the marketplace that's what I was concerned about. I thought that innovation was a product almost exclusively of technical improvements and process and ideas and the frameworks. But what I have come to believe and know, based on all of the data and all of our experiences, that this piece right here, the cultural piece is massive. Why? Let's dig into it. Innovation requires deviation. So we've talked about this principle before. Innovation by definition is deviation from the status quo.

0:07:13.1 Tim: It is deviation.

0:07:15.3 Junior: By definition.

0:07:15.9 Tim: So it requires divergent thinking from the beginning. And it doesn't matter if it's a small innovation, small eye or big eye. If it's a marginal gain, if it's some kind of big breakthrough, it doesn't matter the scope or the magnitude, it's the same.

0:07:36.1 Junior: It requires doing something different.

0:07:38.1 Tim: Yeah.

0:07:39.2 Junior: Now we're social animals, and this is where we get into the introduction of the biological nature of the conversation. We're social animals and what don't we like? We don't like to lose social standing. We don't like to feel insecure, especially relative to other people. I suppose that's what insecurity is. We don't like that.

0:07:57.4 Tim: No.

0:07:57.9 Junior: And we're managing risk all the time. Anytime there's deviation from the status quo that's elicited by us, we introduce this into the system, there's a whole bunch of social risk. And so that's where this mechanism comes into play. And the reason why we define psychological safety the way that we do, you'll see how these principles are connected. We define psychological safety as a culture of rewarded vulnerability. Deviation is a vulnerable act.

0:08:26.9 Tim: It is.

0:08:27.2 Junior: That's the mechanism.

0:08:28.3 Tim: Well, it takes us into a vulnerable space.

0:08:31.2 Junior: Exactly.

0:08:32.1 Tim: Every time that we start to deviate, disrupt the status quo, we're moving into that higher risk arena.

0:08:39.3 Junior: The least vulnerable position in the short term, socially is stasis. It's to stay exactly where we are.

0:08:47.5 Tim: Status quo, equilibrium. Let's stay there.

0:08:50.6 Junior: I qualify that with short term because it's the inverse. When we talk about long-term, the long-term competitive positions jeopardized by staying in the same place and becomes competitively the most vulnerable. But that's what's really interesting is short term, socially less risky for us to do exactly what we're doing. And long-term very risky to go venture outside. Competitively, it's very vulnerable over the long term to stay where we are. And that's where we get some of what makes this interesting.

0:09:24.4 Tim: Very interesting.

0:09:26.9 Junior: Let's talk about this next slide. The threat detection slide. Many of you have seen this before. We have a new version that we're gonna introduce in a second to kind of introduce some gradation, threat detection, safe and unsafe. Tell us about threat detection Tim.

0:09:44.6 Tim: Threat detection is a normal and natural and instinctive process that we go through when we're in a social setting, we're with other people, we're interacting. We need to ask and answer one question for ourselves. And that is, are we in a safe environment or an unsafe environment? The reason that we need an answer to that question is the answer will govern our behavior, and we will be able to provide an appropriate response to the environment, to the conditions that prevail in the environment. So, for example, well, how do, first of all, how do you do threat detection? You watch, you listen, you observe, you perceive, you're taking in your environment. You're trying to figure out if I engage in vulnerable behavior, what happens to me? Well, if I come to the conclusion that I'm in a safe environment, then I will typically offer a performance response. And that means that I can go for it. I can eagerly jump in. I'm going to release my discretionary effort. Let's go for it. Let's add value. That's why I'm here. I feel confident I can do that.

0:10:55.8 Junior: Let's go to the next one. So this is where we get the gradation. We're doing threat detection as you've described. Then we have an experience. That experience is either rewarded vulnerability or punished vulnerability. So if we take my example, I'm in the meeting and I'm summarily dismissed, as you said.

0:11:15.0 Tim: Yeah.

0:11:16.4 Junior: I'm saying after that, unsafe.

0:11:18.9 Tim: Unsafe.

0:11:19.6 Junior: Right. The alarm bells are going off. I'm looking at the environment and I'm saying, oh, not safe.

0:11:25.1 Tim: Well, you have data.

0:11:26.2 Junior: Don't do that. Again.

0:11:26.8 Tim: You have data.

0:11:27.9 Junior: So what happens after that? We start to build a culture of toxicity. When that vulnerability is punished, when someone's asking a question, they're making a comment, they're giving some feedback. And those are all met with retribution. We build a toxic culture. The result of that toxic culture is the fear for the survival response, which as we've said, is to protect what we have. We're gonna hunker down, we're gonna stay in the same place, and we are not going to take risks. We're not gonna take competitive risks. We're not gonna take interpersonal risks. And what does that result in? Stagnation. Organization stagnates.

0:12:04.1 Tim: Yes.

0:12:04.2 Junior: Have you seen this?

0:12:07.9 Tim: Well, if you're not innovating, you're doing this.

0:12:11.6 Junior: Well, we had a conversation about this word too. I, right here where this says stagnates, my version says, dies.

0:12:20.1 Tim: Yeah. That's true.

0:12:22.5 Junior: I like to take it all the way there.

0:12:23.6 Tim: Yeah. All the way.

0:12:24.7 Junior: Because stagnation. What is stagnation? It's just the antecedent to death.

0:12:30.1 Tim: It is.

0:12:30.8 Junior: It's the inevitable end. If you reach stagnation.

0:12:33.1 Tim: It is.

0:12:33.8 Junior: I don't know that it's inevitable, but close.

0:12:35.3 Tim: Yeah. Well, it means that you're not able to innovate. You lose that capability. And this happens, and probably all of our listeners and viewers have been in this kind of situation where you work with a team of highly talented people, highly experienced, highly skilled, and they can't get anything done. They can't, they're not productive. They're not innovative. Why is that? Because of the way that they're interacting, the culture that they've developed for that team.

0:13:12.8 Junior: So the consequence of punish vulnerability, the organization stagnates. It also, you mentioned rhymes and the word, the word smith wins on rhymes. So stagnates, innovates and you can reverse engineer that. So how do we get to the innovation? We have a performance response, which is created by having a psychologically safe environment. So once again, if there's a single piece of this, this slide that people should pay attention to, it's this mechanism right here. It's the fact that we're doing threat detection and it hinges on punished or rewarded vulnerability. That's where we make the decision as to what comes next. Performance or survival.

0:13:55.8 Tim: That's the crossroads, Junior. That goes back to your anecdote 10 years ago in the meeting. That was the hinge point. And since your vulnerability was punished, you withdrew, you were now in a mode of managing personal risk, withdrawal, loss avoidance, self-preservation. Because you have the data that says my vulnerability will be punished. Not rewarded. Okay. I will adapt to that.

0:14:30.8 Junior: And an ancillary point, this is where you decimate the next generation of innovators. If you're young in your career as I was, you haven't built the track record or the confidence to push hard in that meeting.

0:14:43.2 Tim: That's right.

0:14:44.5 Junior: And say, no.

0:14:45.5 Tim: That's right.

0:14:46.7 Junior: This look.

0:14:47.2 Tim: Yeah.

0:14:47.9 Junior: That's not there yet. So what do you do? You retreat. And if that becomes so much a cultural norm that you don't continue to try out those ideas, you're neutralized for the next 40 years of your career.

0:15:00.4 Tim: Well, it underscores the point that permission rights and the opportunity to challenge the status quo are conveyed culturally, or they're withdrawn culturally based on the way that people are responding to you.

0:15:19.2 Junior: So let's talk about fear. I mentioned the fear button in the introduction. And this is the mechanism when we're talking about punished vulnerability, we're talking about fear.

0:15:28.0 Tim: We are.

0:15:29.9 Junior: A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that in workplaces where employees feared being judged or punished for mistakes, turnover rates are 25% to 30% higher than in companies with a culture of trust and safety. The Center for Creative Leadership found that 70% of employees who do not feel safe to speak up about issues at work are considering leaving their organization within the next year. A report from the International Journal of Stress Management indicated that fear-based management reduces creativity by up to 30%. According to a talent innovation survey, 40% of employees withhold ideas or solutions because they fear negative repercussions. Cortisol, this is an interesting one. The stress hormone can increase by as much as 40% in environments where fear or punishment is common. Prolonged exposure to high cortisol levels impairs cognitive function and problem solving abilities, making it harder for employees to innovate.

0:16:26.4 Tim: Yeah. You kind of need to repeat that one, Junior. That is, that's a kicker right there.

0:16:30.1 Junior: A prolonged exposure. I've met a lot of people who've had some prolonged exposure.

0:16:35.6 Tim: Impaired cognitive function. Fear's expensive.

0:16:41.6 Junior: It's very expensive. You follow that all the way to the bottom line of the organization. If that's a pattern of the institution, you think you're gonna win over a long time horizon.

0:16:50.2 Tim: You have an entire organization playing defense.

0:16:52.0 Junior: Yeah. You're gonna get smashed.

0:16:54.0 Tim: Yeah.

0:16:55.0 Junior: Many studies also show that burnout rates are higher in fear driven workplaces with employees in these environments being 1.5 times more likely to suffer from burnout than in a supportive, trust driven culture. So if we look at a slide in summary, what does fear do? It increases turnover, it reduces creativity. We repress our ideas in those environments. It impairs cognitive function and it increases burnout. How does the organization look when all of those things are true?

0:17:27.1 Tim: Stagnation.

0:17:29.5 Junior: Death.

0:17:30.6 Tim: Death.

0:17:31.7 Junior: It's not good. You're not gonna have a good outcome.

0:17:34.4 Tim: Well, and this is not an opinion, Junior. These are empirical facts and these are this is a set of outcomes. This is not one outcome. This is a set of five separate, they're related, but five separate outcomes that are devastating to the organization.

0:17:53.9 Junior: If I could go back and have one class session at university in my strategy courses that solved or helped me prepare for the next step in my career. I would show this next slide. Fear breaks the feedback loop. That's the discussion that I would have if I could go to, and it's not just strategy. You go to any business school, any college...

0:18:22.0 Tim: Any discipline.

0:18:22.7 Junior: Whatever discipline. Right?

0:18:24.6 Tim: Yeah. It's universal.

0:18:25.7 Junior: This should be, this should be a whole day's worth of.

0:18:28.1 Tim: It should be part of the curriculum.

0:18:29.9 Junior: It should in all of it.

0:18:30.0 Tim: There's a few professors that could learn a thing or two about that too.

0:18:32.9 Junior: Yeah. More than one.

0:18:34.2 Tim: Yeah.

0:18:34.8 Junior: More than one. So why would I share this? If I could go back and share one thing, why? Because the assumption downstream, when we're talking about the strategy models and the consulting four boxes and all the things that we do, we're assuming nine times out of 10, good information, good intel. If you have bad information plugged into the system, you're gonna have a bad outcome. Just as in math, garbage in, garbage out.

0:19:06.6 Tim: That's right. Garbage in, garbage out. We learned that in statistics on day one.

0:19:09.5 Junior: Where do you get your information? Feedback most often from down the organization. It's the feedback loop that comes up to us. In many cases, that feedback gets sanitized depending on the environment. People withhold information as we saw in some of the data. So if we have an environment that's punishing vulnerability and that's getting filtered feedback from the bottom up, now, at the top of the tower, when we're making competitive decisions in the marketplace, we're making those decisions on bad information or on incomplete information, which is bad information. So of course we're gonna lose. We could have immaculate execution of the strategy, but if the strategy's bad because the intel's bad, because the feedback loop is broken, because there's fear, we're not gonna win. We're gonna lose badly.

0:20:03.6 Tim: That's right. I think too, Junior, it's helpful to just go back and clarify the nature of strategy, right? So we begin with the formal strategic planning process. It's formal, it's top down. We put our strategic plan together, we try to align the organization, and then we go execute. But as soon as that strategy meets reality, as soon as it has its first encounter with reality, it will need to change. It's gonna be off in some way. So we begin to modify, adjust, adapt. How do we do that? Does the executive team tell us how to do that? They have no idea how to do that. So that goes back to the feedback loop. We have to circulate the local knowledge from the bottom of the organization and from side to side. And so if fear has broken that feedback loop, we're cut off. And so as we try to do emergent strategy now. We've gone from deliberate to emergent strategy. How are we going to do that when the feedback loop has been cut off? Can't do it. We are handicapped. We are impaired. We're gonna make some really unwise decisions.

0:21:22.9 Junior: Well, let's take that as an example. Let's say that I have something that in theory, I should pass along, pass up the institution. But maybe it makes my team look bad, or maybe it introduces a risk for whatever reason to my job, or there's some fear of reprisal. I withhold that information. What's gonna happen? Let's say I have a question that I wanna ask my supervisor and I go and I ask that question and I'm met with dismissal. I'm met with retribution or critique of some sort. My autonomic nervous system comes online, and that's this next slide. I have three options available to me biologically. I have the fight response, I'm gonna become defensive. Maybe I become confrontational. That's probably not going to end very well. I have flight. I'm gonna just avoid the situation. Will solve through avoidance.

0:22:24.0 Tim: Walk away.

0:22:25.1 Junior: Non-participation. Gonna just leave or freeze. I have no idea what I'm gonna do.

0:22:30.3 Tim: Just immobilized.

0:22:31.7 Junior: Right? So the point here in talking about the autonomic nervous system, we've talked about this in previous episodes. That's baked in, that's firmware. That's in there. You're not gonna get rid of that as an individual, and you're not gonna get rid of that in other people. This is just how we're going to operate. It's the field we're playing on. So if you ignore this, you deny this, it won't affect the reality of the situation, which is that this is what's going to happen anytime you press the fear button on somebody.

0:23:07.7 Tim: It reminds me, Junior, so you can't change biology, and yet I can't tell you how many senior leaders and executives that I've worked with that say, "Look, I don't have a lot of time for culture. I have a business to run. And I wanna grab them by the lapels and say, you're not getting it." The culture is what will allow you to formulate the strategy, align, execute the strategy, do it again. So if you're not understanding the connection, you're not paying attention to your organization.

0:23:51.2 Junior: There's a time in which, and maybe there are times still that you would've had to grab me by the lapels and tell me that, because I probably would have responded with, well, let's just get better people, right? Let's just solve the problem. Let's just use a different model. Let's take it at a different angle. But it's not what happens. And so, well, these are... The autonomic nervous system, fight. I respond by becoming defensive or confrontational. I've seen that. This next one, I disengaged. I stop sharing ideas or withdraw from group discussions. I've seen it. Freeze. I stopped taking action. This is what I did. I'm afraid of making the wrong move and I paralyze innovation and participation.

0:24:41.5 Tim: It goes beyond that, Junior. We've all seen every response. Each of these three responses, we've also done them. So personally, just a little bit of reflection brings us to the point where we understand how expensive fear is and how expensive that consequent response, that survival response is to the organization.

0:25:10.8 Junior: The last slide we're gonna share today is this one, toxic workplaces. Let me change colors. Toxic workplaces activate the same neural pathways as physical pain. You have to think about that and let it sink in. So the same pathway is triggered when I dismiss your question as is triggered when I hit you in the face.

0:25:33.5 Tim: Yeah.

0:25:34.3 Junior: It's the same.

0:25:34.9 Tim: Yeah.

0:25:35.5 Junior: And so it's not the same thing, but the same pathway is triggered.

0:25:39.1 Tim: Yes.

0:25:39.5 Junior: And you have to think about it that way. One of the things that really got my attention is this analogy that came to mind when I was thinking about the words that I use. Sometimes we're throwing metaphorical chairs at people. They're responding the same way as if I were throwing literal chairs. If I pick this chair up and I threw it at you, your body's gonna respond the same way as if there's threat of me saying something to you, right? Criticizing you in public, dismissing your question, making you feel stupid in front of a group. All of those things are the same pathway. If you come to terms with that as a leader, you really understand it. You look it in the face and you say, oh yeah, that's true. You're gonna behave differently.

0:26:27.0 Tim: You are.

0:26:28.7 Junior: You are.

0:26:29.2 Tim: You are.

0:26:29.9 Junior: Because would you stand up right now and throw your chair at the person? There's probably somebody that would, but probably not.

0:26:36.2 Tim: Probably not.

0:26:37.2 Junior: So why don't you have the same restraint over your mouth? Why don't you have the same restraint over your behavior?

0:26:43.9 Tim: So when that finally registers with you, when you understand that the brain, to a large extent makes no distinction between physical pain and emotional pain, it changes your behavior, it changes your life, it changes who you are as a leader.

0:27:00.9 Junior: Yeah. I'm gonna give one more little tidbit here on why this is so damaging as it pertains to innovation. We talked about organizations having more turnover when they have toxic culture. It's worth asking the question, what type of turnover's happening in that environment? Is the best talent, the talent that's leaving, is it the lowest talent? Is there some pattern as to who's leaving? What we've seen is that it's the best talent because the best talent has more optionality than everyone else.

0:27:40.2 Tim: True.

0:27:40.8 Junior: And so they have less tolerance for an environment like this. But Jillian brought up an interesting point, which is that maybe they will stick around and not say anything because they have more confidence, they are high performing. But what happens, and at that point they're neutralized. Even if they stay, they won't be able to reach the bottom line impact because they'll get caught up in the organization. The institutional barriers will preclude them from having the impact that they would in an organization that was healthy. So there's an interesting thing called Prices law. Prices law says that 50% of the creative contribution of a population is attributable to that population's square root. So if I have 100 people, 10 of those people do half of the work and so on. It scales to the point where, where you have an institution of 10,000 people, you have a very small number of people who are doing 50%. So why? If you get rid of the top 10% of your organization, what does that do to the total output?

0:28:51.1 Tim: To your productivity and innovation.

0:28:52.0 Junior: Or it drives it into the ground.

0:28:54.8 Tim: So you just took out 50%.

0:28:56.8 Junior: And it's not one to one. And that's what leaders need to understand. If you lose one out of 100, okay, maybe it's one out of 100, does that mean that it's 1% productivity loss?

0:29:08.9 Tim: No. No.

0:29:09.9 Junior: No.

0:29:11.8 Tim: Not if they're the top count.

0:29:12.9 Junior: It could be double digits in one in 100. So you have to be very careful. And that's something that I hope will get people's attention because that is true. That's something that we've seen in organizations where a leader, someone has outsized contribution, high leverage in the institution. And if they leave, it creates a big gap that's hard to recover from. If that becomes the pattern, then guess what? When talent sees that there's not existing talent, they don't come in. They say why is there no other talent?

0:29:44.8 Tim: What's going on here?

0:29:45.3 Junior: Yeah. So you can see how that spirals out of control. I thought that that was an important point to bring up.

0:29:50.4 Tim: It's a great observation.

0:29:52.7 Junior: So Tim, as we wrap up today, what are your final thoughts?

0:29:54.7 Tim: Well, I just wanna go back over the five consequences of fear in the organization. Because I think this is the synthesis of everything. It increases turnover, it reduces creativity, it represses ideas. It impairs cognitive function. And finally it increases burnout. You as a leader are not going to change biology. You're not going to rewire your people so that they don't issue a survival response when it's not safe. That's not going to happen. And then finally, we just need to remind ourselves that if you're in a leadership position, you're responsible for the culture, for the prevailing norms, for the conditions that exist. You're the chief cultural architect and you're not gonna change biology.

0:30:46.8 Junior: Love it. If I were to give some spark notes, I would say that innovation is the lifeblood of organizations. And innovation requires deviation, deviation's vulnerable. So if we punish vulnerable acts that are the ingredients for innovation, we're not going to innovate. We're going to stagnate. And that stagnation spirals until our organization is irrelevant, can't compete in the marketplace and eventually dies. That's a biological mechanism that's working in there. When we're punishing vulnerability, we have to come to terms with it as you said. That was a good discussion.

0:31:23.9 Tim: I think so.

0:31:24.2 Junior: I appreciated that one. So for all of you listening, thank you for spending time with us. It's fun for us to get together and have conversations like this. If you enjoyed today's episode, please leave us a like, a comment and subscribe if you haven't already. We will catch you in the next one. Bye-Bye everybody.

0:31:47.1 Jillian: Hey, Leader Factor listeners. It's Jillian. If you liked the content in today's episode, we've compiled all of the concepts and slides into a downloadable resource for you. Click the link in the description or visit leaderfactor.com to explore our full content library. Don't forget to subscribe and we'll catch you in the next episode.

‍