[music]

0:00:00.0 Junior: I think. Actively toxic leaders should be fired. Passively complicit leaders should be coached. Welcome back, everyone, to The Leader Factor. I'm Junior, here with my co-host, Dr. Tim Clark.

0:00:18.8 Timothy Clark: Good to be with you.

0:00:19.6 Junior: And today we're going to be talking about toxic leadership, if you couldn't guess.

0:00:24.1 TC: Yeah, you just made a pretty bold statement, Junior.

0:00:26.8 Junior: I think it's fair.

0:00:29.1 TC: Well, we're going to talk about that.

0:00:30.2 Junior: That's the summary of today's conversation. So if there's nothing else that you get from today's conversation, you can take the one line. That's right. You can run with it. So presumably everyone listening to this episode has encountered a toxic leader. Maybe you've had a toxic boss in the past. Maybe you're having some issues today and maybe you are the toxic. Well, I guess. If you've never met one, maybe you are the one. Hopefully not.

0:01:00.7 TC: I think what you're pointing out right out of the chute, Junior, is that this is more common than rare. This is not something that we find once in a while. We find this, it's pervasive throughout organizations.

0:01:13.0 Junior: And you're probably not a toxic leader if you're listening to a leadership podcast. So probably safe to say.

0:01:18.7 TC: Yeah.

0:01:19.4 Junior: Let's talk about influence. So influence is at the heart of leadership. You have pathological. You have. Healthy. Tell me about a time that you experienced pathological leadership, Tim, pathological influence. Was there ever a coach, a professional leader, an educational leader that you encountered early on where you said, oh, this is what that's like?

0:01:47.1 TC: Yeah, all of the above.

0:01:47.2 Junior: All of the above. So let's just go back to the word pathology. So pathology is the branch of medicine that deals with the causes and effects of disease. And when we apply this to organizational behavior and leadership in particular, we have to distinguish between the motivation and the ability, the skill or the will. So if we encounter a toxic leader, what we're really talking about is malignant intent. The intent is not there. The correct intent is not there. So the toxic leader uses people as a means. Not an end. That's the fundamental distinction. And so therefore, the effects of toxicity, the toxic leader, are destructive. For example, you can take a leader that's maybe not very experienced or very skilled. Okay, that leader is ineffective. That's a lot different than being toxic. So that distinction needs to be clear. Toxic is destructive because the intent is malignant. Ineffective, that's a skill side problem. So we can develop, we can grow, we can learn, we can get better. Do you see the difference? I think that needs to be clear for everyone watching today. Skill versus will.

0:03:11.8 TC: Skill, will, intent.

0:03:12.6 Junior: Intent.

0:03:14.8 TC: Intent is the biggest problem relative to toxicity.

0:03:18.9 Junior: It is. Because if you're toxic, what are you doing? You are pre-meditatively doing things that hurt people. That means you've thought about it, you're doing it on purpose. That's a far different thing than struggling with your skills and your experience and your knowledge, what to do, right?

0:03:39.1 TC: Yeah.

0:03:40.6 Junior: Well, the topic of toxic leadership can be a difficult one because when you encounter a toxic leader in the workplace, what do you do about it? Sometimes you have no control. Sometimes you have all the control and none of the strategy. So we're going to talk about each of those instances today.

0:03:55.2 TC: Yeah.

0:03:55.7 Junior: And help people understand what is toxicity as it relates to influence. How do you spot it? And then what do you do about it? So let's go to the slides and we're going to start off by talking about the spectrum of influence. Now, for those of you who have seen this slide before, we made a couple of changes. It's getting better and better. We're not even going to call them out.

0:04:16.0 TC: Maybe we will.

0:04:17.1 Junior: Okay. So let's look at the axes over here on the Y axis, we have intent. So as Tim was saying, intent is the root of all of this. If you look at the root of pathology, it's going to be an intent issue. And if you look at the root of the most healthy leadership, it's going to be an intent thing. Then we have influence. That curve will go up and it will go down as you move across the axis. So these labels that Jillian added before we love, covert, overt. Covert influence with low intent over here is what? Manipulation. This is deception, influence through deception. Have you seen this in leadership before?

0:05:03.7 TC: Yeah, absolutely. And what we're saying, Junior, is it's deliberate. People are trying to influence others this way through manipulation. That's what they're trying to do.

0:05:15.7 Junior: Sneakily.

0:05:17.2 TC: Yeah. So they're trying to hide intent. They're trying to hide their true aim, and they're using manipulation.

0:05:26.9 Junior: On the other side. Over in the overt camp, we have, coercion force. So this is pathological influence through force. Tell me about coercion.

0:05:39.2 TC: This means that we're muscling people. We are pressing them into service, just forcing them to do what we want them to do. And I think it's important to understand that for both of these pathologies, right? Manipulation or coercion. This is often the socialization that a leader grew up in, was brought up in. This is what they know. This is what they've been taught. This is what has been modeled to them. So they often just continue that because how do humans learn through observation and imitation. So they'll perpetuate that. So it's very important that we are explicit. In addressing this spectrum of influence so that you can see where these different patterns come from.

0:06:34.5 Junior: In your experience coaching executives, working with leaders, which one of these have you seen as more prevalent, manipulation or coercion?

0:06:47.5 TC: I think it depends on industry. I think it depends on legacy cultures that come with industries. For example, if you go into heavy manufacturing, you see a lot of coercion, not trying to hide anything. We're just going to squeeze you, press you, grind you, and force you to do what we want you to do. I say that because I spent years in heavy manufacturing. That's a legacy culture, I understand. I think in other industries, there are themes. And themes of manipulation that we see more strongly depends on where you are.

0:07:29.7 Junior: You think there's a generational difference in the failure pattern? I think there might be.

0:07:36.2 TC: What do you think?

0:07:36.5 Junior: As I look out, I see the older guard using coercion a lot more.

0:07:42.5 TC: I think you're right.

0:07:43.4 Junior: But that doesn't mean that the pathology has gone away. It's just swung to the other side.

0:07:47.6 TC: Sure, sure.

0:07:48.3 Junior: And so the pendulum has swung the other way. And a lot of new age leaders tend toward the manipulative side. If we're talking about pathology.

0:07:58.2 TC: Yeah, I think you're right on that.

0:08:00.6 Junior: So what we want to do is get rid of both of those. But it is really interesting to look at legacy cultures, different industries, and look at the failure patterns. And that's something that you can do in your own organization, and it will help inform your assessment and your training. Because if you know, I'm in heavy manufacturing, and the legacy culture is this. I'm probably going to have to deal more with the coercion side of the spectrum than the manipulation side, which means certain things. I'm going to treat it a little bit differently. My intervention is going to be different. So it's important, I think, to recognize where you're coming from, what the context is, as that will inform the solution.

0:08:36.7 TC: Junior, I want to add a couple of qualifications. First of all, let's not confuse this with compliance, right? What if you're in a highly regulated environment? Then there are things that we have to comply with. We have policies and we have procedures and we have rules. Those are not coercive mechanisms. Those are mechanisms to keep us safe and to allow us to perform. So let's not conflate those two things. That's not the same thing. The other thing I would say is we are going so far as to say that if you pick up your tricks, right, your manipulation. Or your power tools in the area of coercion, you're actually not leading anymore. You've abdicated leadership. That's what we're saying. It's an abdication. So if you go east or west and you leave that center area of collaboration, you're not leading anymore. You're exercising a different applied discipline.

0:09:46.6 Junior: Well, let's talk about that center area. So collaboration, this is what's changed in the model over time. We've made a few different changes because the language is so important.

0:09:55.8 TC: So important.

0:09:56.1 Junior: And we've learned this as we made how many models.

0:09:58.2 TC: Yeah.

0:10:00.4 Junior: Collaboration, we feel like, is the best word. What's the connotation of collaboration? It's that it's teamwork. It's positive intent. It's joint discovery. It's everything that those other things aren't in that we have positive intent and we're going after a solution together.

0:10:22.4 TC: It's the way that we choose to engage. And it doesn't mean that we're going without maybe a point of view or an opinion. Or something we feel strongly about. It doesn't mean that we're not going to advocate hard. It doesn't mean that at all. It's about the approach. How are we going to engage? We're going to engage in a collaborative way. So you're not passive. You're not on the receiving end. We're going to engage together.

0:10:51.0 Junior: Yeah. This might be a model worth just printing out, putting on your desk, studying a little bit and thinking of, I mean, keeping this top of mind. Is useful for every single leader. It'll probably be in the downloadable that we make.

0:11:02.5 TC: Well, I would even say, Junior, that listeners and viewers should go so far as to say, or ask themselves, if we could shadow you for a week, what patterns of influence would we see in you? Would you be in the middle? Do you sometimes go to manipulation? Do you sometimes go to coercion? And really take self-inventory and think about that. Yeah.

0:11:30.0 Junior: Well, there's an invitation, an exercise for you. Print it out, plot yourself at the end of every day. You can literally just come into the model and put your mark and say, okay, Monday, Tuesday. Over here. This was Friday. I had had it.

0:11:44.4 TC: Where am I?

0:11:46.0 Junior: Yeah. Exactly.

0:11:47.5 TC: Okay. So how would we define a toxic leader? Anyone who has a pattern of using pathological means of influence. Or anyone who is conspicuously absent or indifferent while others use pathological means of influence. So this definition gets at the distinction that we're going to be making that we already made early on, but between active and passive. Toxicity is not just a general umbrella term that we can throw out to describe every leader who's pathological. There's a distinction that's very important. Let's go to this question. So we asked, well, how long ago was this? I don't know. Not that long ago. 961 employees. Have you ever worked in a toxic culture? Do you know how many said they had? 86%. That's a lot.

0:12:43.4 Junior: Yeah. Just take that in for a minute. Let that settle on you. 86%. That's almost nine out of 10, Junior. So this is pervasive.

0:12:52.4 TC: It's pervasive. And it's a function of toxic leadership. And that's the connection here that's important to make. Toxic culture is a product of toxic leaders. What comes first? The toxic leader. So if you have a toxic culture, the antecedent is toxicity in your leadership. That's the only way that you can get it. It's not that a toxic culture makes toxic leaders from nothing. It does as it gets perpetuated, which is something we want to stop. But if you start from zero, you don't just all of a sudden start with a toxic culture. It starts with humans and the way that they interact and their means of influence.

0:13:30.6 Junior: And it has to become pattern-like. An incident doesn't create a toxic culture. An incident doesn't create a toxic leader. It's the pattern over time, right? And then we would say, oh, okay, we have a toxic team. Toxic team is going to point to a toxic leader. And so we have to look at patterns. This is all about pattern recognition. Yep.

0:13:53.8 TC: So going into that pattern, let's go to the next slide. This is the distinction we want to make. Actively toxic, passively complicit. Help me understand actively toxic.

0:14:04.8 Junior: Actively toxic means that the leader is actively and deliberately engaging in toxic behaviors. The leader is doing this. And as we said before, toxic behaviors That's a reflection of intent, malignant intent. You're doing this on purpose. You've thought about it, and it reflects the way that you view people, the way you're interacting, the way that you regard them.

0:14:37.7 Junior: What's the pattern that you have seen across industries? Which ones are most actively toxic? Have you seen any patterns?

0:14:47.1 TC: By industry?

0:14:50.9 Junior: By industry.

0:14:54.4 TC: Or is there a pattern?

0:14:55.7 Junior: I don't see a really clear pattern. I think it's a cross-cutting phenomenon, to be honest.

0:15:02.5 TC: So it's a human thing.

0:15:03.6 Junior: It's a human thing.

0:15:03.9 TC: Not an industry thing.

0:15:04.5 Junior: No.

0:15:05.2 TC: And we can't link it to certain demographics either. It exists everywhere. And there's no direct type correlation with any of those things, at least based on what I've seen.

0:15:19.8 Junior: The point of the question is just that, that regardless of your industry, you have to be vigilant in looking for toxicity. Just because you're... Organization has a benevolent mission, does not make you exempt from these realities. That's very true. You could be working in the most benevolent nonprofit the world has ever seen, yet you're still subject to these things. Why? Because it's not an environmental thing in your industry. It's not a contextual thing based on where you're competing or geography. It's if you have humans in the organization. You're subject to these problems.

0:16:02.6 TC: Junior, it is an individual thing. It is a personal thing. The unit of analysis is the individual and what's going on inside their heart and their mind, and the way they regard their colleagues, and the way they choose to interact.

0:16:21.6 Junior: So let's talk about passively complicit. Explain that one.

0:16:25.5 TC: Passively complicit means that there's toxicity on the team. But you are allowing others to act in toxic ways without consequence. That's what's happening. And so if we encounter a toxic team, one of these two things will always be true of the leadership of that team. Either the leader will be actively toxic or passively complicit. It has to be. That we trace the origins of that toxicity to one of these two patterns. So let's think about a passively complicit leader for a minute, Junior. How does this happen? The leader is, just think about use cases. Think about situations where this might be true. Passively complicit leader that is allowing toxic behavior to go on. The leader is new, inexperienced. Doesn't have the skills. The leader is intimidated by perhaps a strong personality on the team that is taking over and shaping the norms, hijacking the norms of that team. So you can see situations where this could be true. These are really regrettable situations, but they happen, and we need to understand what to do about it when we encounter a passively complicit leader.

0:17:56.5 Junior: Yeah. Let's go to the failure pattern. So we have these two types of leaders, active, passive. Here's how organizations often respond to them. They do nothing. They wait too long to do something.

0:18:13.5 TC: Yeah.

0:18:14.7 Junior: Have you seen this?

0:18:16.5 TC: Those are the two options. You do nothing or you hesitate. You sit on it. You don't act.

0:18:23.0 Junior: I wanna make a point here, and I'm interested in what you think about it. So if these are the two failure patterns, we do nothing or we take too long to do something. The irony here is that a toxic leader is the worst thing that you could have in your organization. I've been thinking about this. I've been thinking about macro level factors, industry, competitive headwinds, financing, whatever it is.

0:18:50.2 TC: Whatever it is.

0:18:51.0 Junior: I think that a toxic leader is the worst thing you could possibly have because a healthy leader, one who uses collaboration as the primary form of influence, can deal with whatever those problems are. Now, even if you're in a competitive, strong position, if you insert toxic leadership into that scenario, you will eventually lose because that competitive advantage eventually is derived from the human interface.

0:19:23.2 TC: That's right.

0:19:24.2 Junior: And that's something that I've seen and become convinced more of every single day, that competitive advantage lies at the human interface. Regardless of the technology you possess, regardless of your competitive moat, that will erode and degrade over time. If you have this type of pathology in the organization. If that's the existential threat to the organization, pathological influence, then why are we not going after that and rooting it out with all the energy, with all the resource?

0:19:58.8 TC: Why do we not understand that if we hesitate or we don't act, that that condition is going to compound and the adverse consequences are going to get bigger and bigger. It's very interesting because what you just said, Junior, that's a big hypothesis, that toxic leadership is the single biggest liability that you could have in your organization. Bigger than competitive disadvantage, bigger than macroeconomic forces, bigger than all of these other factors that could be at work.

0:20:32.7 Junior: Well, and while it's ironic at face value, I think the reason it's not mysterious is because of the time delay. If you ignore, let's say that I'm a leader and I become passively complicit. Let's say that I see someone step over the line of respect an inch and I don't do anything about it. I'm passively complicit, but it was not a big deal. It was a minor infraction. But now we have tolerance. Now we're going to start normalizing that behavior.

0:21:04.1 Junior: The next time, maybe they go two inches over the line. And after that, it gets a little bit farther and we get into a pattern of inaction. We're not going to operate and say, no, that's not tolerable here. Eventually that unravels, but not today and not tomorrow and probably not next week, but next month and next quarter and next year. Now we have a culture it's entirely different from where we started. I've become passively complicit and the organization is hurting because of it. And so, no, it's not mysterious as to why we wouldn't just jump in. It's easier to just not do anything. That's why I think competitively and in leadership, it's so important to have a long time horizon. If you said, this organization is going to be my responsibility for the next 30 years, you might...

0:21:57.2 TC: You're not gonna put up with that.

0:21:57.3 Junior: You might act a little bit differently, right?

0:22:00.3 TC: That's very true.

0:22:02.4 Junior: But it goes to show the length at which we're willing to own things. And it's short for most people.

0:22:08.5 TC: Yes. And there's the natural tension between short term and long term, which everyone needs to manage. And to your point, we neglect this. We overlook it. We don't act. Okay. But junior, let's talk about, let's talk about why. Number one, it's unpleasant. We don't wanna confront the issue. That makes sense. But number two, this is often the case. The toxic leader is actually a high productivity leader gets results, right? Usually through exploitation, but gets results, has a track record of results. So we don't wanna pull him out of the game. Yep. And so there's a huge disincentive to address the issue. So what do we do to your point? What we tolerate, we normalize. So we normalize that. And then even though we don't wanna face it, we are saying yes to the compounding long-term consequences and rest assured they will happen.

0:23:18.6 Junior: They're coming.

0:23:19.2 TC: They're coming. The day of reckoning is coming.

0:23:24.3 Junior: So what do we do with each? Let's go to the slide. If the leader is passively complicit, coach them. If they're actively toxic, let them go. That's as simply as we can put it.

0:23:34.6 TC: Yeah. Now that's what has to happen.

0:23:36.1 Junior: So with a passively complicit leader, this is interesting. And I'm curious to hear your perspective. Why coach them? If we're saying that coach them, presumably they can be coached. What's the pattern? Have you seen that this population is more coachable?

0:23:53.1 TC: Extremely coachable. Why? It goes back to the distinction between skill and will, right? So the passively complicit leader is failing on the skill side of the equation, typically not the will side. So can you coach skills? Yes. If the intent is there, if the desire is there, if the regard and respect for colleagues is there, we can take your skills to another level. We can teach you how to be the chief cultural architect of your team. We can teach you how to hold people accountable. We can teach you how to take out that toxic behavior that is afflicting the team. Now, on the other hand, if you're actively toxic, what's the problem? You have a will side problem, not a skill side problem. What are we going to do about that? We can't skill build over an intent problem.

0:25:00.5 Junior: Yeah. Well, you and I have talked about this before, and we've seen that the percentage of those who turn it around once they're in the actively toxic camp, small.

0:25:08.0 TC: Very small.

0:25:09.8 Junior: 5% or less.

0:25:11.1 TC: 5%. That's it.

0:25:11.9 Junior: Those are not good odds.

0:25:13.3 TC: No.

0:25:14.1 Junior: You wouldn't bet on those odds.

0:25:15.0 TC: No.

0:25:17.2 Junior: So the only path forward is to let them go. I'm grateful that you brought up the lens of performance because this is what makes it complicated. And for an average listener listening at the beginning of the conversation, they may say, well, yeah, that's pretty easy in theory, but in practice, here's the reality of my organization, and this is what I have to do with my team. I have a very performant toxic person, but I need this project done. And I know that this person can perform in whatever their role is, it gets difficult.

0:25:49.8 TC: It gets dicey.

0:25:51.1 Junior: It gets really hard. But what we have seen is that the 5% rule applies. Yeah. You have a 5% shot at them turning it around.

0:26:01.6 TC: Turning it around.

0:26:04.4 Junior: They're likely not going to. So in that scenario, you have to let them go. Regardless, I won't say regardless, but almost regardless of the context and the situation, you will pay for that. And that's something that I would hope to communicate really strongly. You will pay the price of not letting them go five times over before you actually let them go if you wait. Now is better. Early. As soon as you see that pattern, active toxicity, they're using manipulation, they're using coercion, and that is the pattern. You gotta let them go.

0:26:41.6 TC: Junior, let me add one thing. There's another remedy that I have seen again and again, and sometimes it works. So other than letting a person go from the organization, in fact, I was in a meeting yesterday and we talked about this very thing with a large multinational where they have an executive, the executive is toxic, very high performer. What do we do? We don't wanna let them go. And so the other remedy that I'm seeing is that they will put them into an individual contributor role. That's a very high level role.

0:27:23.0 Junior: You put them in timeout.

0:27:24.8 TC: It kind of put them in...

0:27:25.9 Junior: Well, that's what it sounds like.

0:27:26.3 TC: You're buffering their toxicity, but you're getting their attention in a pretty dramatic way. And you're saying, look, we value you, but you cannot lead humans and act like that. And so we're going to give you one last opportunity in this strategic individual contributor role where you can do meaningful work and have a big impact on the organization. But we're making it absolutely clear that you can't do that anymore.

0:28:05.9 Junior: Yeah.

0:28:06.8 TC: You got one chance to turn it around in terms of the way that you interact with people and we're acting in good faith. This is a meaningful role. And so here you go. I've seen this now over and over again, and sometimes it works. And so I would just offer that up to organizations that encounter this situation. What do we do?

0:28:32.2 Junior: I like that you're giving them an opportunity. I would add that as part of that conversation, the communication has to be crystal clear.

0:28:39.1 TC: Oh, yes.

0:28:40.5 Junior: That that behavior we will not allow, period. It's not a negotiation. I'm not interested in how you feel about it. It is not tolerable in this organization. And if that's not okay with you, you're welcome to leave. It has to be that clear.

0:28:54.8 TC: It does. At the same time, you're expressing your concern, the way you value that person.

0:29:02.1 Junior: Are you softening my point of view?

0:29:05.7 TC: No, I'm not. But the clear expectations have to be there. I agree. You got one shot. And if you don't perform in this way, if you don't treat people like people, you're done. That's it. And there has to be absolute clarity about that.

0:29:24.2 Junior: So let's talk about how you spot them because it may not be obvious. So how do you spot a toxic leader? You look for fear. We were having this conversation a little bit earlier that fear is probably the best proxy indicator for toxicity that exists. But even that might be too general. So what do we mean when we say fear? What are we looking for? Here's a list. High turnover, low morale and engagement numbers, poor performance, unethical behavior, self-promotion, ignored or dismissed problems, someone who plays favorites, they take the lion's share of the credit, they're disrespectful, or they show patterns of deflection, blame, denial, and excuse. So if you see fear popping up in the organization and it shows itself this way, it's a good indicator that there's some pathology lurking there that you need to go and figure out.

0:30:16.1 TC: Yes.

0:30:16.7 Junior: What would you have to say about that? Are there any other patterns that are alarm bells or sirens to you as a leader? If you're looking at an organization that says, hey, you need to look over here. There's a problem.

0:30:31.1 TC: Junior, it reminds me of, so let's go. I'm gonna harken back to college football days because I remember this. This really is very clear in my mind. As players, position coaches would change, right? And one of the questions that the players would ask each other, very common question is, does that coach play head games? I heard this over and over and over because it was such a common thing. So many of the college football coaches do not know how to work with players other than with manipulation or through manipulation and coercion. On the manipulative side, head games, not playing straight with you, not being clear about expectations, not being clear about what you as a coach are willing to do, what you're committed to.

0:31:33.3 TC: So the player is left in suspension. The player is left in a state of ambiguity. The player doesn't know where they stand. It is the worst kind of coaching. So I just remember that question being asked over and over again, does the coach play head games? And I certainly saw that a lot. So that's an indication, right? That's one pattern of the way that gets manifested.

0:32:05.1 Junior: Every single leader should be on the lookout for these patterns inside their organization. All the time. We need to be scanning for this constantly to make sure that this is not happening in the organization to stay vigilant. So as we wrap up, I wanna go back to the model, the spectrum of influence and show this one more time, because this is all of it in a nutshell. The most important piece, if I could call it out, is this right here, that intent piece. If you do nothing else as a leader, we want this to go up. We wanna focus on collaborative influence, and we wanna get away from manipulation and coercion.

0:32:48.2 Junior: So as we're reflecting ourselves on our own behavior, that's what we wanna do. We wanna look at those patterns and say, do I lean one way or the other? What's my tendency? Let's hedge against that so that I can operate from a place of credibility and high leadership and then I wanna scan the organization and make sure that there's no pathology. If there is, what do we do? We identify the type. Is it an actively toxic boss or a passively complicit leader? And then we will coach the passively complicit. We will manage out those who are actively toxic, and in some scenarios, give them an individual contributor role. What else would you add as we wrap up?

0:33:31.0 TC: Well, Junior, I would just go back to say that there's a compounding principle that's at work here. If there's any toxicity, it's not going to stay in a state of equilibrium. There's going to be degradation over time. It's an infection. It's a pathology. It's going to spread. That's why we have to jump on it and go back to the principle. What you tolerate, you normalize. And in far too many cases, we do nothing or we hesitate and we act, and we're so late to the game that we are passive, we are reactive, and we have already borne many of the consequences.

0:34:19.5 Junior: All right. Well, thank you, Tim, for your time today.

0:34:23.1 TC: Thank you.

0:34:23.2 Junior: I appreciated the conversation. For those of you listening, thank you for your time and attention. We know you could be doing a whole lot of stuff, so thank you for spending your time and attention with us. We would be interested to hear from you if you've ever had an experience with a toxic leader in the comments. You don't have to tell us who it was or what happened, but if you have been on the receiving end, tell us how that felt and tell us what you do to maintain healthy influence. We will see you in the next episode. Bye-bye.

[music]

‍