Is your workplace too soft, too challenging or just right? Resilient organizations, like effective leaders, strike a purposeful balance between connection and accountability, and between comfort and challenge. Join Bridgette and Irvine to hear more about the characteristics of resilient workplaces and how you can contribute to creating one for your team.
LISTEN TO PODCAST
Don’t forget to check out Irvine’s You Tube channel with new videos every Wednesday on emotional intelligence, resilience, and leadership.
Check out Irvine’s new book Leadership Lessons From The Pub.
Check out Bridgette’s book which she co-authored with Bod Duggan Resilient Leadership 2.0.
And as always, don’t forget about all the mind-blowing free resources some of which are mentioned in each episode.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
Hello everybody and welcome to season two, episode four of the Resilient Leadership Podcast, where everything that we talk about is aimed at helping you to lead with a greater sense of calm, clarity and conviction, even in anxious times. My name is Bridgettet Thuerer. And, uh, today as always, I am joined by my good friend and my collaborator, Irvine Nugent. Irvine, it’s been a while. How are you?
I am doing well. I’m on the man, yeah, <laugh>. I went up to Deep Creek of Maryland, which is the northwestern part of Maryland, which is a little ski resort. There was some snow there and I, what I didn’t realize, there was an inch of ice underneath the snow and I fell and badly sprained my wrist. And it’s an occasion. There’s two main lessons coming out of this. Number one, when you’re 50 about to be 57, your body doesn’t bounce as well as it did when you’re 20 <laugh>. And, uh, the second thing is, you know, when you’re used to having something and all of a sudden it’s put out of action, it is amazing how much of life is dependent upon a little risk. So, um, it’s been a lessons of patience. Mm-hmm. And dare I say, having to ask others to do things, which, uh, is an interesting lesson as well.
Indeed. Well, I hope that your healing continues to be speedy. Thank you. Because I know it’s difficult to navigate around a badly sprained wrist. That’s
Facts. Yes. There you go. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But I am, thankfully. I am. So, Bridgette, tell us a little bit about what we’re going to dive into today. I’m curious. Hmm.
All right. So today we are gonna be drawing upon a classic fairytale Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Now, pretty much everybody has heard of this fairytale, right? Irvine you have, right?
Oh, I grew up with, it was certainly one of my, if not my favorite fairytale. Oh
Gosh. And so what’s funny is that I just reordered it. Well, I just ordered it for the first time for my grandchildren so I could read it to them. I recall the fairy tale myself and listeners. You may also recall that in this story, Goldie Laine character comes upon a cottage and she goes inside and needing a nap. She tries out three beds and one is just too soft and one is just too hard and one is chest. Right? And that’s the one that she gets nice and cozy in, and she falls asleep and has a great nap. So today we are going to use a similar lens to look at our workplaces, and we’re gonna step back and we’re gonna assess, is our workplace too soft? Is it too hard, maybe too challenging, or is it just right? Because, you know, that place of being just right is about striking a balance. And when we strike that balance, we are creating what we refer to as a resilient organization. And we have talked Irvine many, many times over season one and into season two about what it means to be a resilient leader. Right. In fact, yep. In the intro we say <laugh>, that a resilient leader is somebody who can lead with calm, clarity and conviction in the midst of anxious times. But what about a resilient organization? So how, maybe this is a great place to start, Irvine. How do we define what a resilient organization is?
Yeah, absolutely. Very interesting when you kind of move from the individuals to an organization. And when we talk about organizations being resilient, I think a definition, let’s use this one for today, which is that organizations possess the leadership capacity to face and surmount adaptive challenges in a sustainable way. Now, let’s just break that up, <laugh>, cause that’s a lot of words with, uh, some deep meaning go, uh, going on. So let’s just, the first part of it is it’s organizations that possess the leadership capacity. So that’s really important because, you know, capacity is a huge question in organizations today. And the type of capacity, you know, we’re talking about is not just that we’ve, we’ve got enough leaders in place, but rather that we have enough leaders who have really self differentiated themselves at all the levels in the organization. And why is that important?
Well, it’s important because resilient leaders build resilient organizations, and there’s no other way around that. So we have a, a, a depth of leadership in an organization, which is able to self differentiate itself. So the second then is that they’re able to respond successfully to adaptive challenges. Now challenges are not new to organizations. We’ve all had to overcome different challenges, but, uh, you know, as the pandemic showed, you know, sometimes these challenges that we’re facing today are off a depth and a speed that is really new to us. And so therefore organizations have to adapt. And really, it’s kind of, they, they just don’t happen at once. They come in waves and they’re unpredictable mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and they are novel. No one, no one had we’d ever face a worldwide pandemic until we had to. And so organizations had to respond. And then the final part of this definition is that, that, uh, we’re able to do that in a way that is sustainable.
And this is incredibly important because, you know, anyone can respond to a challenge one-off and put everything in. But can we do that over time? And of course that recalls that we’re able to be sustainable without burning ourselves out. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Now that’s a tall order, <laugh>, and to ask all of those, each one of those from an organization. But, you know, I think at times we learn about the resiliency of an organization when it is challenged. Yeah. And what brings to mind, you know, is, is organizations that met the challenge very well and creatively, uh, during Covid. And there was a, as I thought about that, you know, I, I brought to mind a few, some of which I had personal experience of, but one I remember reading an article was Virgin Airways. You know, here was a, an industry that was absolutely decimated because of covid. No one was flying. We, we couldn’t fly, we weren’t allowed to fly. And so a Virgin Airways very quickly, um, was able to change their business model and move from flying passengers to flying cargo. Hmm. And so instead of 15, uh, cargo being 50% of their business all of a sudden became 85% of their business. And of course, supply chain issues meant that that was something that the world needed. And so they’re able to adapt very quickly, change their model, and then change it back again as people were able to fly.
That’s interesting. I did not know that. Cuz contrast that to Southwest Airlines, which Yes, the pandemic revealed its vulnerabilities.
Absolutely, yes. And then there was another, it’s a local drink mixer company in Virginia. Their name is Pratt Standard, and they make the most delicious mixes that you can put alcohol or not, you don’t have to use alcohol if you don’t want to. And to make cocktails, our local realtor who would be done business with invited us to a cocktail evening virtually. And I said, this is gonna be horrible. It is not gonna work. I mean, how can you mix the whole thing about it is mix is being there. So they proceeded to have this, we got a little box two days before the event. It was a mixer and two glasses. And what was amazing was their, the ability of the mixologist to truly include everyone. There was about thir uh, about 30 people on the call. We mixed our drinks at home and we celebrated with each other.
And I have to say, wow, it was one of the best events I had during Covid. And so hats off to Pratt, uh, standard whose business model could have been decimated. They moved it online very successfully. And their mixologist was truly great in their ability to describe things. So obviously you can’t smell, you can’t do things like that. You have to invite people into the experience. And I thought they just did that. Hmm. So incredibly well. And then just one quick one that I read about the other week is the red roof hotels who are now offering rates to come and work in the office, come and get a room and work from the room during the day. Cuz they realize sometimes people’s homes are not the best or there’s something happening and they just need a space. Yeah. So hotel rooms. So they, they’ll rent you a room for 29 bucks for the day and you can do your work in, in the quiet of a hotel
Room. That’s fascinating. I love that. Very creative, right?
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So hearkening back to our Goldilocks principle, how would you describe an organization, Bridgette, that is either too comfortable or too challenging?
Yeah. You know, because that adaptive quality requires that we’re right in the middle there. Right. If we’re too soft, we’re too comfy, we don’t adapt quickly. And if we’re too challenging, half the people are burnt out before the change comes our way. Absolutely. So, so you know what, let’s do this Ervin, let’s start with what a too soft, too comfortable workplace might, might look like, right? This paint a picture of that. All right. So I’m gonna share some things that come to my mind and then I’d be curious to hear what you think. But first thing that comes to my mind is that as an organization, a workplace is, is too comfortable when there’s a risk-adverse mentality that is pervasive. And of course, most people in organizations have some degree of risk aversion. Uh, and yet in, in an organization where it’s, it’s very comfortable, this mentality pervades.
And it’s kinda like, you know, the way you hear it is that when new ideas that are kind of bold or you know, really sort of out there are mentioned, you kind of hear crickets and they’re sort of like, you know, don’t broke. What I mean, don’t fix what ain’t broke. You know, we’ve always done it this way. And, and so the idea of grabbing hold of bold new initiatives is just not a strong muscle in the organization. So that’s what first came to mind. A couple of other things, I think organizations are too comfortable. You will not hear a lot of feedback being given, particularly constructive feedback. Yeah. It just doesn’t happen. It’s not habit yet. And it could be because in those workplaces, people focus on being kind, you know, there’s like an element of like, oh, let’s all just be nice and, and play together nicely.
And, and so feedback is sort of not something that people are comfortable with. And then I think leading, you know, or building off of that is you will see definitely in organizations that are too comfortable, an avoidance of the performance improvement conversation. They will not have it. And by that I mean, you know, you have an employee who is underperforming, has been for a while, and is not meeting expectations and everybody knows it. Has a conversation been had? No. Are those conversations ever had? Hmm. Not very often. And again, there’s a sense of like, Ooh, I don’t wanna hurt somebody’s feelings, or it makes me uncomfortable to have it. And so I don’t like being uncomfortable. Right. So those are a couple things that come to my mind. And when I think about what connects all of those is that, you know, to, to do those things, to take risks, to consider bold new ideas, to give feedback and to confront somebody about a performance issue means that you have to have the ability to tolerate the discomfort of others.
And in organizations and workplaces that are too soft, too comfortable, glad the leaders don’t have that muscle yet. Yeah. At least that’s what I’ve observed. How about you, Irvine?
Yeah, absolutely. I, I totally agree with that. And, and I think there’s too, too much of a preoccupation about not upsetting. Now there’s too much of a preoccupation of really not able to live with that discomfort for a longer time. You know, sometimes it takes people a little bit to adjust and are we able to sit in that space, you know, more than a day, a week, maybe, maybe even a month before people come around? And, and, and very, it’s very rare that, um, you get a leader who’s comfortable in that. Mm-hmm.
<affirmative>. Yeah. Okay. So anything else come to your mind that you think are sort of key indicators of a too soft workplace?
Yeah, I, I mean, I think one is, it’s kind of been been mentioned a little bit, but let’s just dig the, and that is the attitude to conflict. Yeah. You know, I think conflict happens and all organizations, when they are dealing with responses to change in the world or to plotting new courses, conflict is going to happen because we have different ideas. There are different ways of, there’s not just one way of approaching it. Right. There are many ways. Right. And so therefore, in a healthy organization, people are going to hopefully voice what they think. And that is gonna lead to conflict because there’s going to be differences of a, of opinion. Right. And unfortunately, what you see in some soft organizations is that people tiptoe around conflict because I think they think if there’s conflict, it’s going to impact people. And that conflict is going to be disagreeable.
We don’t want to live with it. Yeah. The problem is that if we don’t have the conflict, then we really can’t have the next thing which happens as well, which is accountability. Right. Cause what conflict enables is that everyone is able to voice what they think, you know? And even if people disagree, even if an idea is not accepted, at least it’s on the table. Yeah. And therefore, it’s very hard to hold people accountable whose voices have not been heard. Hmm. And, and I think, you know, there isn’t any th this this, this inability to have conversations and hold people accountable because it’s really not just, you know, it’s not really healthy organizations. It’s not just the leader that’s holding people accountable. We’re holding each other accountable. That’s right. And if we’re part of a, of a team, you know, hopefully, you know, Hey, team wor, this is not working. You said you would do this and, and you haven’t. What’s the problem? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, let’s talk about it. And I think everyone says, well, I can’t do that. That’s not my role. Why would I do that? And so therefore, you see that a lot in mm-hmm. <affirmative> in soft organizations.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense to me. And when you put all of these things together, you know, what, what’s happening is that people’s, especially leaders, their muscles for doing heavy lifting are atrophying. Hmm. Because cuz a lot of what we’ve talked about requires some heavy lifting. And so the, that muscle atrophies, and then when they get hit with an adaptive change, which by its very nature requires brand new ways of thinking and acting, they just don’t have the ability to do that work. At least not as swiftly as is often required. And so that’s the two comfortable workplace. And so, inviting our listeners to be, of course, in your own conversation about do some of those characteristics describe your workplace, your team, and if so, what’s your role in that? That might be an interesting thing to sit with, huh? All right. Yeah. So now we gotta talk about the other side, right? Because some organizations will slip into a too comfy place, and then others will go the opposite direction and really become too hard, too challenging for people to navigate. And that looks, and sounds of course, very different. And we could just say, well do the opposite of what the two soft is. Uh, yes. And it’s more nuanced than that, right?
Yeah, absolutely. Because what you’ll find in these organizations is, is really, it’s too challenging and it’s too challenging to be sustainable. You can see this, certainly, I see it in some organizations that adapted to C O V D, they made large cuts to be sustainable, but when they rebounded, they didn’t come back. They, they, they’re functioning as if, you know, they’re still in the midst of the pandemic. And so what you’ll find is like unrealistic goals and deadlines that are just the rule rather than the exception. And what you find in these organizations is that people won’t have the conversations. You know, they won’t say, because there’s a fear then almost, that it’s not gonna be tolerated. It’s not gonna be welcomed. If I say, look, th this is just unrealistic. This deadline is just impossible. And so it’s, it’s, you know, it leads to this exasperation, which is never really expressed.
And then coming on from that, it’s this chronic overcommitment doing too many things. And we had an episode of that a few weeks ago on, on overcommitment. And, you know, it, it really is talking to not that every now and again, we’ll go through periods where we’re stretched and we, we feel we’re overcommitted, but this is just this ongoing over-commitment that never ends. And there’s no end in sight. You know? Uh, there’s an organization I’m working for at the moment where I really see this, there, there is this, this sense of every day, I mean, I, I was having a coaching session a few weeks going from, says to me, I just dread going into work. Ah, because it just feels like she’s, the only way I can describe it is that I feel I’m in deluged in water every day. And, and my head goes above the water and I breathe and I come down and I said, that’s what it just feels like. And I was thinking like, whoa, what an image.
What an image. Whoof
What an image of just this, this kind of overwhelm. And, and basically I’m able to take like little bra, I can’t breathe. I can, all I can do is get breathe and suck it in, and then last for, for, for a few minutes and then breathe again. So, so there’s that over commitment. And then what you’ll also find is insufficient mentoring and development, you know, literally, I just talked to them mean to this sink or swim, you know, so people are like, you know, well, well, how am I supposed to do this? Well, I don’t know, just do it <laugh>. And it’s, it’s this, this kind of mentality that yeah, you know, you, you get get to it and do it. And of course, we know from research that one of the things that people find about organizations or find an organization that makes them want to commit is a sense that they are learning and growing. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And this is different. There’s no learning and growing here. This is just basically this, this dread of being thrown into the deep end. And really that’s not, that’s surviving. Ah, you know, you know, there’s a difference between surviving and then, um, being mentored and being developed.
You know, what Irvine is occurring to me in this moment is that in organizations that are too soft, people aren’t growing because they aren’t being stretched. They aren’t being required to do hard things. But in the two hard organizations too challenging. They’re not growing for a different reason. They’re being given an opportunities. Yeah. But it is just figure it out, sink or swim. And some people swim, but a lot of people don’t.
Yeah, absolutely. They live, they vote with their feet. Mm-hmm.
<affirmative>, very interesting.
So bridge, anything else you would add to that about organizations that would be too hard?
Well, one thing that occurred to me just as you were speaking when you were talking about chronic overcommitment is I think in a lot of organizations that are too challenging, there’s just too many priorities. There really aren’t priorities. Everything’s a priority. You know, like we have 15 strategic priorities. Well, that is ridiculous, you know? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And so it’s kind of part and parcel of being overcommitted, but there’s a, there’s a lack of crisp focus because everything matters. Everything’s a priority. Yeah. And you can’t win at that. You know, that’s what makes it so challenging is you just can’t win at that. The only other thing I would add, and I see this from time to time in organizations that are too challenging, they’re very driven, they’re very results oriented. So that’s not an issue. But sometimes that gets carried to an extreme where bad managers are promoted because they get results, but they trample people in the process and the organization promotes them anyway.
And man, there’s nothing worse than, you know, working for somebody who, you know, got promoted because of results, but they, they are terrible people managers. Yeah. Yeah. So I see that too. Yes. That’s, I think those are the only other things that come to my mind. Now, again, thinking of our listeners, perhaps in your workplace, you’re like, yeah, some of that’s going on, and here’s what I’m wondering about Irvine, tell me what you think. There’s the extremes, too soft, too comfortable, too hard, too challenging. And we’re gonna talk in a moment about what the balance looks like, right. But is it possible that maybe we have some listeners going, wait, my organization has both, some, some of each of those things kind. Kinda like you have a big king bed and kings size bed, and on one side is too soft, and another, it’s too hard. There’s only one spot in the middle where it’s just Right. You know, I don’t know. What do you think?
I think it’s possible. Yes. I think it’s possible because, you know, certain organizations are compartmentalized and the experience of organizing will be very different. And depending on what your department does and how his experiences a absolutely, I, you know, I’ve had coaching clients from the same organizations. Sometimes I wonder, is this the same organization? Because the experience was so different. So I think it is quite possible mm-hmm.
<affirmative>, and you have different leaders and, and you may have a leader who, who is one of those driven results oriented, we don’t care about people in, in one place, but in another, you have the nice leader who won’t hold anybody accountable. So yeah. So maybe the answer to like, which, which extreme, if any applies to you is not so simple as, oh, we’re too soft or we’re too hard. Right. Yeah. Okay. So of course, now, you know, it begs the question, so what’s the balance look like? And what we are suggesting and, and proposing is that right in the middle there is what we call a resilient organization. Right. So, so Irvine, let’s start painting a picture of the balance place and what that looks like.
Yeah. So just as a reminder to everyone, we defined what we meant by resilient organization, and we said they were organizations that have the leadership capacity to face and surmount adaptive challenges in a sustainable way. So what does that look like? Well, I think, you know, one of the things is there’s a sense of purposeful urgency to challenges and opportunities. So we have a lot of challenges, a lot of opportunities. But what I think is marked is this sense of purpose, but it’s, it’s purposeful. You know, there’s, there’s an urgency and a clarity and a focus, which I think feels and looks very different to some reactivity. We’ve talked a lot in the past about anxiety and about how our anxiety feeds its way through an organization and reactivity in an organization. And that doesn’t mean that in the face of, you know, something that’s happening, we’re all calm and nothing is happening.
No, there is a purpose, there’s an urgency, but it doesn’t have to be frenetic, it doesn’t have to be unfocused, it doesn’t have to be chronic, but it’s thoughtful. It’s steady, and it’s clear and it’s hyper-focused. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So I think that’s, and that looks and feels very different. So I think that is present in a resilient organization. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> also a resilient organization. How it approaches risk is different. And I think the risk is, again, very thoughtful. And it’s encouraged, you know, in the sense of, especially when we are facing something that hasn’t happened before, we have to take risk. You know, we have to think out of the box and sometimes thinking out of the box, we’re gonna think the wrong way. And we try something, but we learn something from that. And I think that that type of thoughtful risk taking is encouraged and it’s visible and, you know, and, and then a company can work its way through that of what, what’s the best way to respond. Yeah. In this situation,
You know, Irvine, what I’m wondering about as you’re speaking is with the pandemic, it gave us permission to take risk. Yes. It was like, we don’t got a choice here. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Now, when there’s not a clear and present danger like that, how do leaders continue to foster thoughtful risk taking? Isn’t that the challenge? Right?
Yeah, it really is the challenge. I think for me, what’s important is a mindset that there is no such thing anymore as a safe space for any organization. You know, it used to be that we would have like a 10 year planning or a five year planning. Can you imagine that now? Yeah. It’s, it’s a joke. It is. So, so if we’re sitting in a space think, you know, we’re okay, we don’t have to make any changes, then I think there’s something wrong. And so therefore, I think that that, that constant ability to encourage, you know, where, where are we going next? And, and even encourage risk in that sense, I think’s really important.
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Yeah. That’s the thing, is, you know, how can we as leaders be fostering resilience in our organizations when there isn’t a Covid pandemic that is giving us the explicit permission to do all of this stuff? Yeah.
Yeah. And then just one other thing I would say it’s, it’s, again, it’s this beautiful balance between a, you know, and a culture that has accountability and connection. So it creates connection in the sense that people want to belong, and it addresses our need of wanting to belong in the workplace. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But it’s also not afraid to make people accountable and to call out accountability, because at the end of the day, we want that too. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, we want to grow, we wanna flourish, we wanna learn. And part of that is being held accountable for the, our behaviors and, uh, of what’s happening there. So I think that’s that balance as well. You can see that in a resilient organization. So Bridgette, you know, we often try and share some neuroscience tidbits in our episodes. So what’s something that comes to mind for you in this, this organization which is trying to be resilient and balanced in itself from chew soft too hard and just right in the middle?
Yeah. So, you know, recently I came across kind of an interesting little tidbit in this book called The Brain Friendly Workplace. Now this is by a neuroscientist I am not familiar with. So I might not say her name right, <laugh>, but it sounds like it is Frederique Fbri. And she is a neuroscientist who consults with a lot of Fortune 500 companies who are having to navigate big change. Uh, and in chapter six, she talks about good stress versus bad stress. Now, this is not a new concept, right? I don’t know if you remember the whole thing about tress, right? Irvine mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And that’s supposed to be positive stress and okay, I’ve heard that distinction before, but specifically what she shared was the neuroscience behind short stress, shortened duration versus long-term stress. And the, the research shows that from a brain perspective, stress that is 30 minutes or less, meaning in duration, right?
There is some kind of threat or challenge that we have to really sort of face and deal with. Uh, anything 30 minutes or less is actually very helpful to us physiologically because it equips us to focus and we take that focus and we get down to work cuz we’re very clear, right? But what’s interesting, uh oh, and the immune system is actually bolstered in that first 30 minutes. But after 30 minutes, when it gets to be maybe about an hour, and we’re still in that stress response, our immune system starts to go back to baseline and then actually starts to decrease. And from an hour on all the effects of stress that we’re kind of used to talking about, you know, the effects on our, our uh, wellbeing, our health, our sleep, our immune system, our ability to sink creatively, those start to kick in. So her bottom line is, think about it this way, good stress is short stress, bad stress is long stress. And you know, what it reminded me of is our distinction between acute anxiety and chronic anxiety, right? Absolutely. Yeah. Remind you of that too.
It does. Absolutely. Yes.
Yeah. Murray Bone was much more interested in chronic anxiety, the kind that lingered, uh, was an abiding state of a niece that was always present. And when the chronic anxiety starts to spike, that’s I think the kind of stress that we want to lower in organizations and resilient organizations and resilient leaders, you know, really are mindful of that. Yeah. Yeah. So anyways, that’s what I thought was kind of interesting in terms of neuroscience. Okay, so we’re gonna do something different for a core practice, aren’t we?
Yes, we are. So we, we’ve normally come up with a little practice for you. This time we’re actually going to use an assessment and we’ve put together a number of questions which will try and encapsulate some of the ideas we’ve talked about today. It will, um, help you really assess where is your team on this, how resilient are they? And it’s a one page assessment and we are going to put that, uh, on a link. So as you listen to this episode, um, the show notes will have a link where you’ll be able to download that assessment and you’ll able to, to really assess where you are at in your team. Is it too soft, is it too hard, or is it just about right? And, and I think it’ll really help you pull out some of the core ideas today and then maybe think about a path forward and some actions perhaps that you can take as you move more into that middle that just about right for your organization.
Love it. And for the listeners that might be familiar with Resilient Leadership 2.0, you might know that in the appendix there, there is a one page assessment called How Resilient is your Organization. This assessment is similar, but it’s aimed at your team. Uh, and so I think that can sometimes be more helpful because you can’t change the whole organization by yourself. If the organization’s too hard or too soft, you can play a role in that, but where you can really make strides is with your own team. Yeah. Yep. Awesome. Well, Irvine, this has been a fun conversation, revisiting the Goldilocks principle. You know, I hope our listeners have been able to sort of step back, have a little bit of fun with this, take it, you know, sort of with some lightheartedness, but also be inspired to do something mindfully and thoughtfully that will bring your workplace into that more balanced zone, right? Where people can thrive.
On tap for next time? Irvine, can you tell our listeners about that?
Yes. So we are going to look at the reality of change, and we’re going to look at it from a perspective of what’s the things that we tend to go through as we face change and look at it a little bit more psychologically as a way of dealing with that and becoming better prepared.
Well, Irvine, I don’t know why we’re talking about change. I have no change going on in my life. <laugh> <laugh>.
Yeah. So everyone, uh, thank you for listening today and we hope you got, uh, some great tidbits. Uh, as always, if you know someone in your life that could really benefit from some of the thoughts we were talking about, please feel free to share this episode with them and we look forward to meeting you and to being with you in their next episode.
Take care everybody. Bye-bye.