Partnering with Your Board to Navigate Tumultuous Times

Mary Papazian, Senior Fellow at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges and former president of San José State University, joins our host, Joe Gottlieb, to explore how institutional leaders and boards can navigate today’s perfect storm of change in higher education. 

From AI’s transformative impact to shifting student expectations, political pressures, and evolving financial models, Mary shares how transparent communication, co-leadership, and agile strategic planning can help institutions remain resilient and mission-focused. Listeners will gain insight into fostering board–leadership partnerships, embracing modern technology as a driver for change, and making thoughtful decisions that keep colleges and universities vibrant and relevant in a rapidly changing world. 

References: 

Mary Papazian

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB)

Subscribe or follow TRANSFORMED wherever you listen, to get the latest episode when it drops and hear directly from leaders and innovators in higher ed tech and digital transformation best practices.

Find and follow us on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/company/higher-digital-inc

Transcript

Mary Papazian: 0:00

Boards have to understand what some of these issues are so that they can be good stewards of the long-term vitality of their institution. They don't want to have blinders on and be surprised. They don't want rosy pictures and not address real issues. So finding for presidents and their leadership teams, finding that right level of transparency. In my experience, boards don't mind getting bad news. They want to help be problem solvers with leadership.

Joe Gottlieb: 0:30

That's Mary Papazian, senior fellow at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, pointing out how boards need to understand the primary sources of tumult facing their institutions so they can partner with leadership at those institutions, help manage the risks, and guide the strategic decisions necessary to uphold the mission despite myriad industry challenges that we are seeing today. We talked about key principles of trusteeship, the importance of thinking individually but acting collectively, and the evolving role of strategic plans as roadmaps for both boards and leadership teams collaborating more actively in the spirit of co-thought leadership. I hope you enjoy our conversation.

Joe Gottlieb: 1:21

Welcome to TRANSFORMED, a Higher Digital podcast focused on the new whys, the new whats, and the new hows in higher ed. In each episode, you will experience hosts and guests pulling for the resurgence of higher ed while identifying and discussing the best practices needed to accomplish that resurgence. Culture, strategy and tactics, planning and execution, people, process and technology. It's all on the menu because that's what's required to truly transform.

Joe Gottlieb: 1:54

Hello, and thanks for joining us for another episode of TRANSFORMED. My name is Joe Gottlieb, president and CTO of Higher Digital, and today I am joined by Mary Papazian, former president of San Jose State University and now senior fellow at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Mary, welcome back to TRANSFORMED.

Mary Papazian: 2:15

Thanks, Joe. Happy to be here. So what do you want to talk about?

Joe Gottlieb: 2:19

Well, I'm glad you asked. I want to talk about your thoughts on partnering with your board to navigate tumultuous times. But first, I'd love for you to share what inspired you to come out of retirement to work with boards of trustees after running two different schools over a 10-year period.

Mary Papazian: 2:36

Well, it's a great question. I do describe myself as a recovering president and that's really in sympathy for all my incredibly talented former colleagues who are just really taking on leadership at a really difficult time. I loved my time in higher ed and in higher ed leadership, but I realized after I stepped down from San Jose State University that I really had a lot to offer and I still wanted to be engaged and really working with institutions across sectors and across the country. And when an opportunity opened up at the Association of Governing Boards, which is an organization I have highly regarded for so many years. I mean, AGB produces great resources, great events, great webinars. And I'd learned a lot over the years from them. So had a chance to actually join them as executive vice president. And I served in that role for about two years. Just recently kind of trying on that semi-retirement again and stepping back into the senior fellow role. But it really gave me a chance. What I didn't anticipate, Joe, was how boards were going to really come right into the crosshairs of some really challenging times. And suddenly, everybody wants to talk about boards. So we were busy at AGB, let me tell you that.

Joe Gottlieb: 3:58

I will say, and that's why this conversation is so relevant right now, and I'm really looking forward to it. So let's frame it up. I want you to introduce the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, AGB, and in particular its principles of trusteeship that it provides to help its members so that they can understand these principles and apply them in their work.

Mary Papazian: 4:26

Yeah, AGB is an organization and association of members across the country. There's about 2,000 institutional members. It includes institutionally related foundations and governing boards, again, from all sectors, from R1s to systems, public and private, community colleges and the like. And those boards represent about 40,000 individual members or trustees. AGB has been around for over 100 years and is really, I think, been key in helping institutions understand what good governance is. Our principles of trusteeship, which you can find on our website as a handy graphic, really distills some essential points of good understanding fiduciary duties. Whenever we talk about boards, whether it's corporate boards or higher ed boards, fiduciary duties is at the core. For higher ed, of course, we focus on the duty of care, which really means as a trustee, you're focused on the enterprise's best interests. Loyalty, placing that institutional interest ahead of your own political or personal agenda, very relevant in today's moment. And obedience, that is ensuring that the operations align with mission and governing documents, and frankly, all regulatory kinds of documents, again, very much in the news today. And so we look at all of that. Trustees in higher ed are volunteers. They give of their time because there might be alums or they could be leaders in their communities and in local businesses and the like, but they're not steeped in higher education. So we really think a lot at AGB about how we can educate trustees on The issues facing higher education, how those issues intersect with good governance practices, how they should understand their role as board members, which is governance and strategy, as opposed to management, which belongs to the president, chancellor, and their leadership team, and really how they intersect as an individual, bringing their own experience, their own ideas, their own perspective to the conversations, but then ultimately the board members makes a decision, the board speaks with one voice. And so how do you find that balance between your individual perspective and the role of the board? And we say, think individually and act collectively. So don't ever self-censor, right? Bring your views to the table in the boardroom, have a vigorous discussion, ask really good questions, and then the board as a whole will collectively make a decision on whatever the issue in front of them might be.

Joe Gottlieb: 7:15

Well, I appreciate that background because it really sets the stage for these important perspectives that good governance should be providing in the context of higher ed. And boy, oh boy, what a context higher ed represents today. Higher education leadership teams and their boards are facing very tumultuous times today. that require extremely thoughtful decision-making on extremely challenging matters. You know, even before AI, higher ed was going through a market value correction of sorts, driving significant change, really for all but the most elite schools were experiencing this, I would say. And even the elite schools have had their share of change and tumult, we'd have to say. But then here comes AI, right? And rearranging not only the relative importance of various careers, but also upending what possible in teaching and learning. And then a new presidential administration in the U.S. has really asserted itself to drive some other changes that I'd have to say, as someone looking at it as objectively as I can— may feel rough, but there are kernels of truth behind some of the changes that are being wrought. And so it sets up a lot of potentially polarizing and confusing agendas, but at a time where there was already a lot of change and even more is being mandated as we go. So how can leadership teams best partner with their boards to navigate this triple storm, I wonder?

Mary Papazian: 8:53

Yeah, no, it's, look, it's not easy. Let's start by being a little bit humble and recognizing that these are challenging times. There have been other challenging times in the history of higher education, yes, but I don't know that we've ever had such a perfect storm. You outlined many of those issues. And it's the rapidity of change that is also a factor here. Change in the past was more drawn out, but now it's happening daily, you know, weekly, monthly, et cetera. And so there's not as much time to reflect and to plan. And higher ed likes, you know, to be very considered, engages in shared governance, and it thinks long and hard through whatever the solutions might be. We don't have that luxury. Now I'll say higher ed has done this before. I can just take us back to March of 2020, when I was president at San Jose State at the time, and we all had to act very quickly and basically flip campuses, small and large, to online. And if anyone says higher ed can't respond quickly, they are forgetting what was really, I think, an extraordinary effort on behalf of so many in higher ed across the country. But the in a sense, obscures changes and trends that were already underlying it. The kinds of things you've described, you know, the digital transformation, the demographic cliffs, the financial business models under strain, the questions about access and affordability, which lead because of the student loan debt to the declining confidence in higher education. A few bright spots I want to just put out here. We have what looks to be like the largest first year class in a long time So that belies the demographic cliff and the belief that college is no longer valued. People see its value. But we still have a lot of work to do to... recalibrate what we do in institutions and how we do it to meet a digitally changed environment. And AI is a truly transformative technology. I mean, we have talked about other technologies being transformative, but from everything I've read, AI is truly going to change the whole way we work, what employers are looking for, how we need to educate and the like. So I think I would just stay here for boards, for a moment, boards have to understand what some of these issues are so that they can be good stewards of the long-term vitality of their institution. They don't want to have blinders on and be surprised. They don't want rosy pictures and not address real issues. So finding for presidents and their leadership teams, finding that right level of transparency. In my experience, boards don't mind getting bad news. They want to help be problem solvers with leadership. So there's possibilities there. And then the other thing I would just say is that it's important for boards and leadership teams here to separate the concept of mission. What are we here to accomplish? And the way we actually deliver on that mission. Most mission statements don't say serve traditional 18 to 22 year olds in a residential environment in classrooms in the old fashioned way. They don't say that. They say, create a learning environment, educate for democracy, for a vital economy, et cetera, whatever it might be. And that means that our environment is going to respond differently to how we fulfill that mission. And boards understanding and having those conversations around what those differences are can really help them open up the space to lead a little differently than perhaps what we've had in the past.

Joe Gottlieb: 12:49

Well, there was a recent call for constructive engagement put out by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. And I imagine... It triggered a lot of conversations at the board level over whether to join this. This was signed by 150 leaders of colleges and universities and scholarly societies initially. And then by the end of the day, it had up to 250 signatures. Last time I checked, it was well over 500 and probably even higher by now. And I'd like to just read the first paragraph to properly ground this part of our discussion. "As leaders of America's colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We'll always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coarse abuse of public research funding." So I really could relate to this statement because I felt it was a constructive response as framed because there does need to be a conversation about things like this. It is healthy. It is constructive to be able to have this sort of discussion. But I'd love to get your perspective on maybe some of those difficult and interesting conversations between leadership teams and boards as institutions try to decide whether to sign this letter or not, right? There's some pretty big trade-offs involved here.

Mary Papazian: 14:26

Yeah. And just truth in advertising here. Some years ago, I was on the board of ACNU. I have a lot of respect for the organization. It's a very distinguished organization. And I would say this, that it's really important to stress that, the core value of board independence and autonomy. It's core to AGB's perspective on good governance, that trusteeship is rooted in this kind of independence. That is, however a trustee is appointed. And in public institutions where I served, these trustees were appointed generally through a political process. So yes, they're going to have political perspectives. And depending on what state you're in and who the governor is, you're going to be anywhere along the the entire spectrum of politics. Nothing wrong with that at all. That's how you're appointed. But that voice, once it's on the board, then becomes an independent voice because you have to, again, the fiduciary duty of care, loyalty, and obedience, putting the interest of the institution ahead. That's who you serve. You are stewards of that institution and you are holding it in trust. You are not there to advance a political agenda per se. And so this is a core value. And I think what the boards were probably doing is weighing I wasn't in those boardrooms, but I talked to many trustees at our national conferences and in other venues. And clearly, there's something to be said about a collective voice. Early on, one institution stepping up or another stepping up, it's easy to make yourself vulnerable. But if it's a collective voice, it's a very different kind of environment. So I think you start with associations because they don't represent, they're not institutions. And so they have a voice to represent all of their members. And there's a lot of power in that. At AGBI, when I was in my executive vice president role, I was a liaison with the various sign-on letters that we did. And we always thought through and shared with our members what questions they needed to ask as to whether they should or shouldn't sign on or take action themselves. And each board is unique in its environment, in its personality, in its culture, in its history. And it needs to ask itself the right questions. What should we do? Is this something that makes sense? And boards made different decisions. I judged none of them for what decision they made, but I appreciate those who were willing to stand out and say, we want to partner with the government to really think through how we can make it all better. That's constructive. And I hope we don't lose that thread of constructive engagement at a time when politics can be quite fraught.

Joe Gottlieb: 17:21

I agree, and I can see both sides. I imagined, and I had some conversations with some presidents on this topic, which was, I could really see that the president view, the leadership view, and the board's view arriving at the decision to not sign because they felt that that would be the best way they could continue to deliver on their mission because they didn't feel maybe the ability to manage the risks associated with attracting attention. And so they would come out on that side. On the other hand, you know, obviously Harvard is an example of an institution that used a great amount of resource and power base to make a very large stand. And I think the industry celebrated that to a degree because it was nice to see someone with strength step up. But even that also led to the necessary construction of exchange. I don't know if it was entirely constructive the whole way, but I will say that there was a thing going on there. There was a logic exchange about asserting sovereignty, making it clear what principles ought to be applying to these kinds of circumstances. And so, like I said, I could see it going both ways.

Mary Papazian: 18:44

Yeah, and these are difficult decisions. There's obviously the most public sort of example of how... how challenging it can be was the, uh, the, um, former president of University of Michigan and Michigan for initially signed on, then it didn't sign on. Then he was in Florida and it's, it, um, you know, that's an extreme case. And I, I don't have any particular comment on that, but it just illustrates the complexity of the question and how I think we have to respect boards and presidents to, to have made the right decision for them. And, um, but also be grateful for those who stepped up. And again, kudos to AAC&U for its leadership and also for its tone, really thinking through constructive engagement. Look, we have to recognize, you said this earlier, that higher ed's not perfect. There are things we have not always attended to in the way we need to. That looks different at different institutions. And the more we can continue to move forward and address real issues, the better we're going to be. At the same time, I think there's genuine reason to be concerned about some of the ways federal dollars are used to impact the behaviors of institutions. And so, again, finding the right balance on that is going to be important.

Joe Gottlieb: 20:12

Agreed. And I was reminded recently of the notion of focus on process, not outcome. And I think that would apply here, right? Looking back on this decision, if you're able to say, we had a good process, we communicated with the leadership level, the board level, we found a way to be aligned, and then we carried out our decision. Even if history winds up showing that it was either better to be on one side versus the other, I think people can take something out of this that's positive if they were able to reflect on the way that their process worked and how they would apply that process and other challenges that lie ahead.

Mary Papazian: 20:56

Yeah. And I think the key here is, again, the politics can get very messy and it's both local and national. And so those are real, real issues. But I think the key here is to really be thoughtful about what you're trying to achieve as an institution, engage in the right kinds of conversations, honor those fiduciary duties, right? Recognize that you're there to ensure the sustainability of your institution. And if whatever it is you might hear, whether it's this administration or another administration, and there were plenty of complaints about things that came out of the last administration. So it's not always a right left thing. You know, it's, How are you actually stepping up? When do you step up? Do you have a set of a framework for yourself as a board? And maybe this is part of the work that boards need to be doing on an ongoing basis. When is it that we have to step up? What is threatening the sustainability of our institution? And if it is... And one could argue that the cuts in federal research dollars are having an impact, right? So maybe then we step up because there's a relevance. But knowing why you are, and I think here, the more that a board can really think through that before there's a problem, the better. It's easy to say that now when we're in the midst of so much noise, but they'll be better prepared to respond. And I think, and don't be afraid to change as things evolve. You know, it may start out in one way, but it takes a kind of left turn and you need to step up now or pull back because of certain things that are happening. And I think we want to respect boards that have to do that as well.

Joe Gottlieb: 22:43

We'll be right back.

Emily Rudin: 22:46

Hi, I'm Emily Rudin, Chief Client Officer at Hire Digital and proud sponsor of the Transformed Podcast. Hire Digital is a full-service, product-agnostic consulting company providing strategic, functional, and technical expertise to help colleges and universities navigate digital transformation successfully. We believe true transformation isn't about forcing change. It's about unlocking the potential already within your institution. Our expert teams specialize in creating tailored solutions for your unique challenges, enabling meaningful and measurable progress. Higher education is evolving faster than ever. How is your institution adapting? Let's start the conversation today. Visit higher.digital to learn more.

Joe Gottlieb: 23:34

And now back to our program. So I want to now steer this conversation into the topic of strategic plans. Higher ed strategic plans, not unlike plans seen in other industries, often project an ambitious, idealistic, and overly detailed aspiration rather than a strategic intention backed by specific investments in institutional change, new capabilities, and new programs. And so... And yet it seems that this is starting to change a little bit with the emergence of more agile strategic plans and strategic planning, improved budget exception management, and more productive progress tracking. So my question to you is, how are boards assisting institutional leadership teams with awareness, guidance, and governance on this frontier as the notion of strategic planning evolves?

Mary Papazian: 24:29

Well, at the end of the day, the boards are responsible for approving any strategic plan. That is a board-level decision. And historically, these strategic plans have been developed by the campus leadership together with the campus voices and whoever else they might bring to the table and then present it to the boards. And then the boards rubber stamp them or they approve them. I think that's a model that isn't going to work anymore because, again, there's so much change. There are very few institutions that can keep doing things the way they're doing them. There are some, but there are not very many. Most institutions are really going to have to rethink the way they deliver on their mission and how they define what that mission is. That has to be done in conversation with boards and campus leadership and campus communities and broader communities, because we are educating for community leadership, for business leadership, right? And so all of our stakeholders should be at the table. The boards set the strategic priorities and direction But that is done in constant conversation. And I like to think now more about a kind of a co-thought leadership between the boards and the president and the president's leadership. And that could involve, by the way, the academic leadership as well through a shared governance model. So I don't mean just administrators. I mean the voices of at the institution, who clearly care about the institution and the students it serves and the purpose it has. And so I think... Thinking through, it's important to have a north star. I have a bias, I will just say it, toward aspirational visions. Because I think if you don't have an aspirational vision, you can't really do the kind of systemic change and transformation. I mean, your podcast is transformed. And if you're going to transform, you have to look far enough out that you really don't know what you're looking at because we have no idea what the world's going to look like. But how you get there, those tactical decisions are are going to be, I think, much more immediate. And so that there's more of a tension now between that North Star and that broad goal and then those tactical things. And then what are you measuring? I encourage leadership to provide for boards, not just the traditional numbers and dashboards they've always had, but things that really involve trend lines and benchmarking so that the boards can actually become more proactive and strategic rather than reactive and kind of operational. And so thinking about the kind of information metrics that you're looking at, that's going to be really critical. There are hard decisions to be made in many cases. And so the more informed a board is and the more engaged with the campus that a board is, recognizing the difference between governance and management, I think it'll be more effective all around. They'll be better prepared to support the hard work that needs to be done.

Joe Gottlieb: 27:40

Well, I think two things. One, I think we agree that you need an aspiration to draw you to something awesome, and that's what most missions are about, right? And yet how you get there has to be able to embrace new information that cannot be predicted when you articulate a long-range plan. So that, I think we're in agreement there. I think the implication of what you're saying, the second point I'd make here, is that this starts to really elevate the... not just the role of boards, but now... the level of engagement that's probably required for them to be effective. Because if we're now thinking about an institution that does need strategic governance from its board and that governance can only be applied in the context of the rapidly changing environment and therefore the adjustments that the institution is making to keep those trend lines going in the right direction towards that North Star to occupy that mission, I think that's, as you point out, that sets up a very different construct. And as we've been talking throughout this discussion, there are these principles of trusteeship. They manifest as skills and relationships and trust in that dialogue. And with this evolving model can now be brought to bear under circumstances that are much more challenging and rapidly moving than But that doesn't mean they are unmanageable. They could be managed in that regard.

Mary Papazian: 29:21

Well, I think once you say it's unmanageable, you've kind of given up. And part of it, look, Joe, I'm an optimist at heart. Higher education has been a strategic asset of the United States, of its growth, its competitiveness, its development from the founding, even before the founding. So, I mean, Columbia University was King's College, you know, pre-revolution. So, I mean... Institutions have played a critical role. The expansion of education has really allowed the United States to flourish. We saw this with the Morrill Act, the Land-Grant Act in the mid-19th century, to educate for now an expanding industrial economy, the expansion of high school, mandatory high school in the early 20th century, the development of the community college system, which is a really important sector in higher education. And I'm really happy to see we have more and more members at AGB who are community college boards which is fantastic and this is all I think pointing to a moment right now when that change is just accelerating. We started there in our conversation but it's really I think at the core and I tell you when after going through COVID when I had mentioned earlier so many institutions did so much in terms of change what I heard often on the other side of it when we kind of got through a lot of that, is that, whew, now we get to go back to normal. And I'd say, no, there's no such thing as normal. Actually, we now have to lead into change. And that change was there before. It was sort of obscured during the COVID years, and then it accelerated again. And it's not going away. It's just accelerating. So We have the added complexity of the political noise that we're dealing with. And that's real. But even if you took that away, you'd still have institutions having to face real change. And so it's going to be more important than ever that boards understand that, that they support leadership. And I always like to say to boards, to all my great trust. I'm a trustee now, by the way, too. So, you know, my colleagues, that's right. It's right. Remember to support your leader, your president or chancellor, because every time you change there, you're probably losing two to three years of forward progress. And if you're not moving forward, you're falling behind. You're falling behind in competitiveness, in the way you're thinking about your courses, the way you're educating for the future. We're hearing now that companies, and you're probably hearing this too, they're not looking to hire recent graduates because AI I can do a lot of that, right? They want people with different levels of skill. So how do we in higher ed think through that? What experiences do we need? All of our students, whether they're adult learners or traditional residential students, whoever they might be, how do we make sure they get experiential learning? That they're really, it's no longer just learning lots of information. You can get that everywhere, but learning how to assess it how to use it to solve problems, how to think in multidisciplinary ways. There is so much work to be done on thinking about curriculum. And here I just have to, because I'm on here with you, Joe, and we're talking about boards. What I really have said to a lot of boards is think about, learn what it's going to take for students to be educated in a generative AI world, because what are employers looking for? What is going to be needed? What can can't be outsourced or automated to AI. And that means thinking not about whether your English major or your anthropology major have a small number of declining majors, but what skills do they develop? Why are they important? And shouldn't we look at maybe some different kinds of curricular design? Shouldn't we think about how do we get out of the traditional silos we're in and not a assess the ROI in the old fashioned ways. And I think that's, again, that's a conversation between leadership and boards to really understand what has to maybe what might have worked in the past, but isn't going to work in the future. And how do we make that transition?

Joe Gottlieb: 33:58

Couldn't agree with you more. I mean, colleges, it's time to step up. This has been a very interesting year, the way employment placement has happened to this year's graduates. It's been a very sobering experience. I have a my youngest came out and graduated. Luckily, he has a job. It's not exactly the same job he was thinking of going after, but it wasn't. It was an interesting and challenging time. And I think the sooner that more of our higher education institutions can do what you said, which is enable that experiential learning in a post-AI world, they're going to become much more strategic suppliers of labor. Let's just bring it down to that basic syntax, right, for employers that are are not going to be able to keep up on the average. The bulk of employers will not be at the cutting edge. So this is yet another opportunity for higher ed to find a way to get ahead. And at various times, higher ed has been ahead. And this will be an important one.

Mary Papazian: 35:01

Yeah. Recognizing the importance of higher ed and these skills in developing critical thinking, for example, and communication skills and the ability to assess information, both visually, analytic, et cetera, that's going to be so important to a healthy democracy as well. And higher ed has always had a role to play in an educated citizenry, which is core to a healthy democracy. And I think that's very much on many of our minds as well.

Joe Gottlieb: 36:01

All right. In summary, what three takeaways can we offer our listeners on the topic of partnering with your board to navigate tumultuous times?

Mary Papazian: 36:09

Well, first I would say boards have to understand that their role, their fundamental role is to really provide good governance and to have those skills of good governance, those fiduciary duties, those muscles are strong so that they can then at the same time embrace adaptive change. So being sort of evergreen in governance while also being agile in the way that you actually intersect with the issues. That's one. Two, I think to transform that board-president relationship into a partnership that is strategic and really sees itself as a co-leadership model. With different roles, the board is the governance fiduciary, the president or chancellor is the one who both leads and manages, but that they really have to be co-thought partners to address the kinds of challenges that we're facing right now and the And I think the pace of change. And then finally, I think boards have to think about institutional resilience. Boards tend to be more risk averse than many institutions. presidents, particularly presidents with vision. And so thinking about how you balance kind of that risk assessment of a board, which is a board's responsibility, with actually allowing your president to lead, this could also help create that kind of institutional resilience for when the, you know, the crisis of the day emerges, which I guarantee you, if you haven't been touched by it yet, you will be very soon.

Joe Gottlieb: 37:45

Great summary. Mary, thank you so much for joining me today.

Mary Papazian: 37:48

Great. Great to be with you, Joe. And thanks for all that you do.

Joe Gottlieb: 37:51

And thanks to our listeners for joining us as well. We hope you have a great day and we'll look forward to hosting you again on the next episode TRANSFORMED . Hey, listeners of TRANSFORMED. I hope you enjoyed that episode. And whether you did or not, I hope that made you stop and think about the role that you are playing in your organization's ability to change in the digital era. And if it made you stop and think, perhaps you would be willing to share your thoughts, suggestions, alternative perspectives, or even criticisms related to this or any other episode. I would love to hear from you. So send me an email at info@higher.digital or joe @ higher.digital. And if you have friends or colleagues that you think might enjoy it, please share our podcast with them. As you and they can easily find, TRANSFORMED is available wherever you get your podcasts.