0:00:11.0 Junior: Psychological safety is the best indicator of cultural health that exists. Welcome back, everyone to The LeaderFactor. I'm Junior, back with my co-host Dr. Tim Clark and today we're gonna be talking about psychological safety, as an indicator of cultural health. So we're gonna be talking about measurement and its subsequent debrief. So we're gonna be jumping into PS Index, the instrument, walking through some data in the app to show everyone how it works, how we approach the measurement of cultural health inside of an organization. This is what we do. We do this every day with organizations all around the globe. So we wanted to give you some insight into what that experience looks like in a practical sense, and as it relates to the technology that we use to do that. So Tim, let's kind of set the stage and ask the question, what is culture?

0:01:04.5 Tim: What is culture?

0:01:05.3 Junior: What is culture?

0:01:06.2 Tim: Well, do you want a long answer? [laughter]

0:01:09.3 Junior: No.

0:01:10.4 Tim: Yeah. You don't want a long answer.3 A long clinical academic answer. Culture is a complex concept. It's got a lot of aspects to it. It's like nailing jello to the wall to try to pin it down but it doesn't stick very well. But I do want to just say that if you talk about what's in the basket of culture, what would we throw in that basket? There's a lot of stuff. We could say, well, you got attitudes are in there and values are in there, and norms and traditions and mores and customs and language and artifacts and we could go on and on and on. And all of those things are part of culture. But what matters is the way all of those things interact, and then have an influence on human interaction. So, all of those things find expression eventually and ultimately at the human interface. So the definition, the working definition that we use, Junior, of culture is, it's the way we interact.

0:02:27.3 Junior: I love that definition.

0:02:28.4 Tim: That's it. It's the way we interact. Everything comes back to that.

0:02:30.4 Junior: So, what is culture? Is the way we interact. So how do you assess culture? By assessing how we interact.

0:02:42.5 Tim: Exactly.

0:02:42.7 Junior: That is probably lost on some people in organizations for whatever reason, but I think that this is a salient point. Culture is the way we interact and if you want to know how you're doing culturally, what do you have to do? You have to look at the way you're interacting.

0:02:58.4 Tim: That's right.

0:02:58.5 Junior: The human interface. One of the things you said that I loved is, each one of those pieces of culture eventually finds its way to the human interface. It affects the way that I treat you and you treat me. That's the part that matters and that's the part that we eventually have control over. So if I come down here, psychological safety is about how we interact. Well, there's some interaction that's healthy and there's some interaction that's pathological. So if we have healthy human interaction, what do we get? High psychological safety. If we have unhealthy human interaction, what do we get? Low psychological safety. That's about as simply as we can put it. What would you add to this?

0:03:43.5 Tim: Well, psychological safety is a kind of culture. It characterizes the culture. It defines the way that people interact, and so far it's the best, most accurate barometer of the overall health and I guess power, vigor, strength, effectiveness of a culture that there is. In fact, I like to say, Junior, that psychological safety is the biggest breakthrough in organizational science in a generation. It's that big of a deal. How long have we been trying to measure and improve culture? Forever. This is because culture is the soft operating system that includes everything else. We as humans, we swim in culture. Fish have water, humans have culture, we swim in culture. It's that important. It affects everything. It is both a cause and an effect. We shape culture and we in turn are shaped by culture. That's how big of a deal this is. So psychological safety is really, it's really the first time that we've been able to crack the code in this area.

0:05:06.4 Junior: The next thing we have to explain is the mechanism by which psychological safety moves. By which it increases or decreases, and that is vulnerability. The way that vulnerability is either rewarded or punished. An act of vulnerability we've talked about before takes many forms. Ask a question, make a mistake, give a piece of feedback, ask for resources, whole innumerable ways that we can express vulnerability. Now, the way the person on the receiving end of that act behaves will dictate the culture. If I say that's... Why would you ever bring that up in a meeting like this? That's the stupidest thing. Well, that's gonna have an effect on the way we interact.

0:05:52.2 Tim: It is.

0:05:53.2 Junior: On the culture. If I treat that with respect and say I appreciate that submission. Let's discuss that. Tell me more. That will affect the way we interact. It will affect the culture. So how do we assess the way we interact? By assessing those acts of vulnerability and whether or not they are punished or rewarded.

0:06:14.5 Tim: That's right. Everything hangs on that, Junior.

0:06:16.6 Junior: So if we look at this slide, what happens in a condition where we have rewarded vulnerability? These should be swapped. I didn't catch those, my fault. Yeah, would you? That's my fault for not catching them.

0:06:40.3 Tim: No problem. I didn't catch it either. It happens. The good news is that in Big Jam, we can fix things pretty quickly.

[background conversation]

0:07:42.5 Junior: Yep, perfect.

0:07:48.4 Tim: That was fast.

0:07:55.4 Junior: Okay. So now I want to talk a little bit about punished and rewarded vulnerability. Punished vulnerability, what happens in that case where the question is just snuffed out, it's suffocated, it's not responded to? It activates the pain centers of the brain, number one. It triggers the self-censoring instinct. What is that?

0:08:14.5 Tim: Self-censoring instinct, Junior, is just the instinct that you feel to change your behavior, change what you say, if you feel that you're not in a safe environment. So you're gonna do that.

0:08:25.4 Junior: Be quiet.

0:08:25.5 Tim: You're gonna armor up.

0:08:27.5 Junior: And lastly, we have freezes discretionary effort. We're not going to give that extra. We're going to keep it for ourselves.

0:08:35.3 Tim: Hold it back.

0:08:37.3 Junior: Probably because we're tired of just spending all of the energy protecting ourselves, we can't spend that energy innovating.

0:08:42.7 Tim: That's right.

0:08:43.8 Junior: On the opposite side, rewarded vulnerability, if that act is validated and encouraged, that activates the pleasure-reward centers of the brain, suppresses the self-censoring instinct, and releases discretionary effort. What other things have you seen practically between rewarded and punished vulnerability?

0:09:05.0 Tim: Well, Junior, I would say that with punished vulnerability, it thrusts the individual into what we call a defensive routine. And it's not just a little bit different from a performance response. This is what we call a fear response. It is fundamentally different. You're preoccupied with self-preservation. You're preoccupied with loss avoidance. And so you're retreating. You're not there to add value. You're there to survive. So, think about how profoundly different the objective is. I'm here to survive. But if I'm in an area, in an atmosphere, in a climate of rewarded vulnerability, I look around, I listen, I perceive, I watch. Hey, I can go for it. I can jump in.

0:09:54.3 Tim: I can eagerly participate. So that's what I'm gonna do. I'm here to add value. That's the difference.

0:10:02.6 Junior: So how do we measure that? Well, we measure psychological safety. We're measuring that rewarded and that punished vulnerability, in people's perception of their environment.

0:10:14.0 Tim: That's right.

0:10:15.9 Junior: So we use a scale called PS Index. It's our instrument that measures psychological safety. We will send that out to a population, to respond on behalf of their team. Now, we measure at the level of the intact team, and that's really important. We don't measure at the level of the organization and say, how do you feel about your organization that does not produce actionable data?

0:10:34.0 Tim: No, it doesn't.

0:10:36.5 Junior: We measure at the level of the intact team. So let's jump into the app. I want to show the results from a team, sample data. And walk you through how we address this with a team, how the instrument works, what the app looks like, and then how we debrief that with a team in order to make positive change, in order to make progress over time, because we measure longitudinally.

0:11:02.6 Junior: So right here, I've got the so-called customer success department, a single team inside, and I have a four stages score. That's that big number that you'll see right here in the middle. The way that this works is 12-item instrument takes five minutes to respond to, and the range of possible scores are from negative 100 all the way to 100. So 12 is just above zero. On that 200 point possible scale.

0:11:29.4 Tim: That's right.

0:11:31.1 Junior: We have blue zones and red zones. What's a blue zone?

0:11:34.0 Tim: A blue zone is, as we just mentioned, it's an environment of rewarded vulnerability. That means that my perception is, that acts of vulnerability will be consistently rewarded. That's what a blue zone means.

0:11:51.2 Junior: So blue zone is the top end of our scale. So if somebody's responding from zero to ten and they have a nine or a 10 it works like NPS. So you've got blue zone up at the top end, your neutral zone, the next two in the scale, and then you've got your red zone, which is everything underneath that. So blue zone, rewarded vulnerability. Neutral zone, we're unsure.

0:12:13.3 Tim: Inconsistent.

0:12:15.1 Junior: Could be one, could be the other.

0:12:16.0 Tim: Yeah, it's inconsistent.

0:12:18.4 Junior: Might depend if it's Tuesday, how you slept last night, I'm not sure what I'm gonna get. And then red zone, consistently punished...

0:12:24.0 Tim: Consistently punished.

0:12:27.5 Junior: Predictably punished. So you'll see down here, participation, the percentile based on what we've chosen in the benchmark. You'll see right now we've got global selected. We've also got consumer goods and services, education, finance, so on and so forth. But this one, we'll just keep it the global database. I can see that I've got five people that have responded on this particular team.

0:12:50.1 Junior: And then we get into the results by stage. Four stages of psychological safety. Inclusion safety, do I belong, do I feel included? Learner safety, do I feel safe to ask questions, participate in the learning process? Contributor safety, do I feel safe to contribute, make a difference? And challenger safety, do I feel safe to challenge the status quo? So tell me about these scores and any patterns that you consistently see. Are there some stages that are consistently high, others that are consistently low? Walk me through the four stages and the scores that you often see.

0:13:24.3 Tim: Well, Junior, the pattern that we're seeing here is an anomaly. It's an uncharacteristic pattern. A pattern that we often see is one in which stage one inclusion safety is the highest, and then it tends to go down and stage four, challenger safety generally is the lowest rated score, because for most people it includes a higher, more intense form of vulnerability. But you'll see with these data here you've got a pretty low stage one score, and then it jumps up for stage two, learner safety in stage three contributor safety and then it drops to zero.

0:14:05.4 Tim: So that's pretty typical but having said that, we also have to acknowledge that many teams show different patterns, that are uncharacteristic of, I think the overall pattern, which is kind of like what we're seeing here.

0:14:22.7 Junior: Well I don't think it's too anomalous, because there are often instances where the inclusion safety being low is causal for the challenger safety...

0:14:31.1 Tim: That's true. That's true.

0:14:32.2 Junior: But you have high learner and contributor, because whoever's operating that team wants performance. And so they may be hard-driving, they may be coercive, they may be micromanaging, where, no I don't feel included but I know I have to get my work done. And also one of the patterns that I've seen is that learner safety could be higher in a scenario, where that learning pertains only to the performance of my particular job and task. Because that leader might be incentivized for me to perform, and will thus give me opportunity to learn relative to my role but nothing else. Right?

0:15:06.3 Tim: True.

0:15:07.3 Junior: And maybe they're saying, well you know I feel safe to learn my job but I certainly don't feel safe to make a mistake.

0:15:12.6 Tim: Yeah. So it's a good point. I think this pattern is not reflecting maybe the overall pattern that we see but it does reflect a pattern that we often see in operating environments...

0:15:25.8 Junior: Yeah. Certainly.

0:15:27.0 Tim: Where we're pressed to execute and it's all about operational efficiency, and so we do see that this kind of a pattern more often in that environment.

0:15:38.2 Junior: So you'll see these red zones, which we'll get into, but the biggest red zone is in inclusion safety. So if we come down to the inclusion safety section you'll see a big gap. We've got 40 blue zone and 33 red zone. So really polar the responses to inclusion safety. If we come down here I'm accepted as a member of my team, I am treated with respect, I feel included by the people I work with. So, I'm accepted as a member of my team not horrible, 40 big blue zone, but I feel included by the people I work with. So what's the difference, Tim between being accepted as a member of your team, being treated with respect, but then feeling included?

0:16:27.6 Tim: Well, I think feeling included means that you're on the receiving end of actual behavior. Active, deliberate behavior, where people are reaching out to you and they are trying to give you the assurance and evidence that, Hey, you're part of this team and we appreciate you being here.

0:16:47.2 Junior: Yeah I agree. So we'll move quickly through the rest, we just want to give you an idea of how this works at the level of the team and then we'll move into the aggregate data. Learner safety, you'll see your score red zone, blue zone, items, contributor safety, and then challenger safety down here at zero. So, this team is not a team that's performing in any way that we would say is stellar.

0:17:11.3 Tim: No. This team is struggling.

0:17:13.2 Junior: This team is struggling. We've got a red zone that's much bigger than we would like. We want no red zone at all. But one of the optimistic things, let's say I'm debriefing this team. The neutral zone presents huge opportunity. This is your swing vote. We've got, our love group if you will, Blue zone. And then this swing vote in the neutral could go either way depending on the day. Now, how can we get that neutral zone over to blue? It comes out of the behavioral interface. The leader, the members of the team, everyone has to make changes as it relates to their behavior. They got to do things differently. They need to do what might be more inclusive. But what does that mean? It means that you need to reward the acts of vulnerability that come across your desk in that stage.

0:18:03.8 Tim: Well not only that, Junior, but you have to, you have a first mover obligation to model them first and then reward them. So how do you capture that neutral zone, that swing vote and turn them into blue? It goes back to that central mechanism. You've got to focus on consistently modeling and rewarding vulnerability associated with that stage. And there's really no other mechanism or means by which to do that.

0:18:36.9 Junior: Yeah. If you come down to opportunities, this will show your bottom three items. I'm treated with respect, I can take reasonable risks without being punished, and I feel included by the people I work with. If you're debriefing a team.

0:18:51.0 Junior: This could be the best times or the time best spent is unpacking those opportunities and saying, why are these the way that they are?

0:19:00.5 Tim: Well, for example, look at this first one. Print's a little small. Here we go. Inclusion, safety. I am treated with respect. Look at the red zone on there. 40%

0:19:08.6 Junior: 40%

0:19:12.4 Tim: Red zone. That means that 40% of the team perceive a, an environment in which acts of vulnerability, related to respect among and between members of the team, that's consistently punished.

0:19:29.7 Junior: Yeah.

0:19:29.8 Tim: That's a big percentage.

0:19:30.4 Junior: And if people say, well, the range of scores is -100 to 100 and zero, you split the middle, it's not that bad. Well look at the percentile. Fourth percentile.

0:19:41.8 Tim: In the world. Yeah.

0:19:42.7 Junior: You're doing worse than 96% of teams.

0:19:45.9 Tim: Based on the global norm.

0:19:47.5 Junior: That's not where we wanna be.

0:19:49.0 Tim: No, it's not.

0:19:49.6 Junior: So this is how PS index works at the level of the team. So each individual team would get their own score. Now, let's go into some aggregate view and we're gonna go into what we call the heat map. So at the highest level, you'll see just three scores here based on the times we've taken the survey. The first time we took it, the second time and the third time we're measuring longitudinally. Now, if I expand, our executive team is gonna be at the top. Every one will be beneath them. Product, finance, engineering, customer success. I can expand these, I can expand these, and you can start to see how this works. I can look at the different layers in the organization, all the way down to the individual team. In this case, I've got customer success, frontline minus one. That's going to be an individual team with individual scores across time, 35, 53, 76. And I can change my color sensitivity to either make these more drastic or not. So if I expand this, what do I see? I see areas of my organization that are either doing very well or that are hurting.

0:21:01.1 Tim: Well, what we see Junior, is that aggregate data covers up the local variance. And the local variance represents the actionable data at the level of a team where we actually can move, transform a culture, shift the prevailing norms of a team and move to higher levels of psychological safety. We have to get down to this level.

0:21:27.3 Junior: Yep. So if I expand this last survey, the third survey instance, I can see each of the stages. If I expand a stage, I can see the items within that stage. I can start to see the pockets that are hurting the most. So if I turn down this color sensitivity and I'm looking for dark red, check this out. This is, I feel included by the people I work with. Really low customer success frontline three.

0:21:52.7 Tim: Yes.

0:21:54.5 Junior: I know.

0:21:56.2 Tim: So Junior, that's a pocket of toxicity.

0:21:58.6 Junior: It is. So I know that there's something going on there that I need to go and figure out. And what do we know? It's most likely a problem with the leader of that particular team, who's doing something to give me this result.

0:22:11.9 Tim: In almost every case. And conversely, you can see the pockets of high performance.

0:22:16.3 Junior: Exactly.

0:22:18.2 Tim: What teams are really taking off, really performing, really working well together.

0:22:23.6 Junior: Yeah. Well, imagine if we hadn't surveyed at the level of the Intacct team, and all we had was aggregate data. I lose all of the specificity. I no longer can make that statement. I can't pinpoint with accuracy. The areas that are doing really well, and those that are doing really poorly, I can't say customer success frontline three has a problem in this area.

0:22:46.6 Tim: So from an intervention standpoint, what are you going to do?

0:22:49.5 Junior: Exactly. Nothing that's going to solve that problem in any meaningful way.

0:22:53.4 Tim: This is what organizations do all the time with their engagement surveys. They run their engagement...

0:22:57.5 Junior: Just broad buckets.

0:22:58.4 Tim: Surveys every year, they aggregate the data and then they try to figure out what to do. And they hit a wall at a certain point and they're not able to make additional improvement.

0:23:11.3 Junior: Yeah. One of the cool things that you can do in this view is this export button. You can export all of the data, whatever selection you want, and your demographics, and then you can pull that into other performance metrics that you have. We have an organization that looked at talent rating and team PS index scores.

0:23:29.9 Tim: To see the correlation.

0:23:31.4 Junior: It was correlated. Lemme tell you, it is really fascinating. So I can show the deltas that is going to show me how far away from the mean each of these scores is for any particular team. The next thing that I wanna show is demographic view. This is where things start to get pretty interesting. So if I come down to demographics, any organization can include whatever demographics they want. And as a rule, we would encourage people to include as many demographics as they have data for, 'cause it helps. More data does not hurt in this instance. So let's throw in age. I wanna look at psychological safety by age for my organization. This gets pretty cool. So these are the demographic buckets that this sample organization has provided us. Five-year increments from 20 to 55 and up. One of the things that we have seen across many organizations is psych safety goes up across time.

0:24:30.0 Tim: As...

0:24:31.5 Junior: As age increases.

0:24:32.1 Tim: As age increases.

0:24:32.5 Junior: Isn't that interesting?

0:24:33.1 Tim: Yeah.

0:24:34.5 Junior: If we enable another demographic, let's turn off age, let's go to department. And I do that. That's going to show me, okay, we've got psychological safety that's operating differently in these different departments of the organizations or geography. I can also do multiple at the same time. Let's say I wanna show department and tenure, it will show me the combinations of those. The department group and tenure gram. These are sample names, so they don't make any sense. But integration and tenure, 30 to 35. These types of buckets of data allow us to do really, really neat things to pinpoint. And that's really the crux of the issue here is we wanna pinpoint the areas of strength and those of weakness so that we can inform whatever intervention it is that we're going to be doing.

0:25:24.6 Tim: Exactly.

0:25:26.5 Junior: So last thing I wanna show is the org chart view. This is one of my favorite views.

0:25:31.9 Tim: This is pretty impressive.

0:25:32.9 Junior: So if you wanna blow up the customer success portion, we can see how this works. If you're doing succession planning as an example...

0:25:42.3 Tim: Yeah. So Junior, just alert for all HR leaders. So I want you to think about how you do succession planning. And I want you to think about two kinds of accountability, performance accountability based on the metrics. We all understand that, and then cultural accountability. How do you systematically measure and assess cultural accountability to inform your succession planning decisions?

0:26:13.0 Junior: Yep. So let's...

0:26:14.3 Tim: Most HR leaders don't have a way to do that.

0:26:18.5 Junior: No, they don't. So let's say that I'm looking at customer success team too. They have a score of 63. Let's say that this manager turns over, and the natural promotion would be for one of these three customer success managers to take a spot. Let's say that the manager in customer success frontline five, she's crushing, 88, 79, 58. Which one of these do you think would be best suited, all else equal? Well, certainly this one. If we promote the manager that has the score of 58 with the biggest red zone, we're gonna have a liability that we're then going to have to look after.

0:27:00.4 Tim: Yep. So we have some data. We have some quantitative data on the cultural side.

0:27:03.0 Junior: Do we regularly look at data like this when we're looking at promotion?

0:27:07.2 Tim: No.

0:27:07.9 Junior: No. We don't.

0:27:08.9 Tim: We don't.

0:27:09.8 Junior: We don't. We're gonna look at performance data.

0:27:12.1 Tim: Performance data.

0:27:12.9 Junior: And those numbers may be very different. Not correlated with these numbers.

0:27:18.0 Tim: Yeah. You gotta look at both.

0:27:18.9 Junior: Let's say that the leaders pressing their people into service and they've achieved some good performance, but it's culturally a train wreck. You promote based on performance, you get that person in the next seat and now you have an even bigger problem 'cause that behavior then gets normalized and perpetuated, especially when the organization sees, well, there's incentive to perform at what expense, maybe at any expense. Cultural accountability is not a thing, so we're gonna do what we have to do to get the promotion.

0:27:49.5 Tim: That's right.

0:27:51.1 Junior: Where in reality, that position should have turned over. We should have managed that person out of the organization, put someone else in their place. And you can see in a matter of just two or three steps, we have a very different organizational makeup in our leadership population when we integrate cultural data. That's why I love the org chart view.

0:28:11.9 Tim: Yeah. It's a powerful tool.

0:28:13.5 Junior: So let's back out of the app for a second and talk more broadly about what we do with this data. Recently you've been on site with some really big organizations, big multinationals, that have used this data to do things to inform their training initiatives, to hold managerial populations accountable. How are people using this data in what you've seen and how's it been useful?

0:28:40.1 Tim: Well, Junior, I think the most effective thing that you can do to help a team, especially when you get to higher levels of management and you get to the executive level, they need a data set. If you go in there with anecdotal information, with feedback, with impressionistic evidence, with opinions, it's not gonna go anywhere. You've gotta come in with quantitative data based on a validated instrument to give them a baseline and show them where they are. There is no more powerful way to help establish what the current state is so that you can then create a portrait of the future and a roadmap to get from current state to future state. There's no more powerful way to do it. And by the way, just as a footnote, that's more than a footnote. Most executives will simply not acknowledge anything other than a quantitative data set when it comes to something like this. As it relates to culture, it is so easy to dismiss anything else that you might put in front of them. But if you put a data set in front of them like this, that includes the registered scores of everyone on the team, you can't dismiss it.

0:30:14.8 Junior: No, you absolutely can't. One of the things that I wanna show quickly is a piece of an executive summary that we recently delivered to a client to show how organizations use this data longitudinally. So, I'm going to reshare my screen and show a piece of this executive summary. This is results over time. Now you can see the four different stages of psychological safety and their results across time. These are some of the most important pieces of data that an organization can look to, to measure progress. If we don't have this type of longitudinal data, it's very difficult to say that we've made any meaningful progress.

0:31:06.1 Tim: That's right.

0:31:06.8 Junior: It will be subjective and anecdotal. So especially, if you are in L&D, you're in an HR function and these are your performance metrics or they should be, this is the way that you do that. And so this is literally something that we have put on the desk of an executive team and said, here's what happened over the last year, two years, three years as we've continued to measure.

0:31:29.4 Tim: That's right.

0:31:31.3 Junior: And this gives tremendous credibility to those who are running those programs and showing, Hey, this is what we're doing and this is the impact.

0:31:38.1 Tim: Junior, just by the way, taking this as a case study, we have four data points. We have, I think we may have two years worth of longitudinal data. You can see that after the second measurement, they made tremendous progress. And then since then, after the third measurement, they flagged a little bit. This helps us understand. It underscores the delicate dynamic nature of psychological safety and the fact that we need to be deliberately trying to nurture it, ongoing. This is the nature of culture.

0:32:11.6 Junior: It's never done.

0:32:13.0 Tim: It's never done.

0:32:13.7 Junior: So as we said in the beginning, psychological safety is the most important metric to assess cultural health. If you wanna assess culture, you assess psychological safety.

0:32:23.3 Tim: That's right.

0:32:25.1 Junior: Why? 'cause as we laid out in the beginning, psychological safety is about human interaction and culture is the way we interact. So you need to measure whether or not the vulnerable acts of your people are being rewarded or punished. If you want innovation, you want high performance, they better be being rewarded. If they're not, you're gonna get a stagnant organization that will eventually be irrelevant.

0:32:49.4 Tim: That's true.

0:32:51.6 Junior: Sooner rather than later. Competitively, this is not just a HR conversation. This is about the competitive nature of your organization.

0:33:00.8 Tim: It's about the enterprise, isn't it?

0:33:01.5 Junior: It is.

0:33:02.5 Tim: Yeah.

0:33:02.6 Junior: Anything final as we wrap up today?

0:33:04.4 Tim: I'd like to say this a lot, Junior, but when it comes to psychological safety, if you're in a leadership position, you either lead the way or get in the way. You can't be a neutral party.

0:33:15.4 Junior: Yeah. Well said. With that, we will say goodbye. If you like today's episode, please leave us a like, subscribe if you haven't already, and send to a friend if you think that this would be valuable for them. If you're interested in running PS Index with your organization or your team, please let us know. We would be happy to help you run the survey and get your hands on some organizational health data of your own. We will see you next episode. Bye-Bye everybody.

0:33:49.7 Junior: Sorry we're over.

0:33:51.0 Tim: No, it's great. Great job.

0:33:58.7 Junior: I pulled another audible to grab that data. One thing...

‍