“If you treat an individual as they are, they will remain how they are. But if you treat them as if they were what they ought to be and could be, they will become what they ought to be and could be.”
Quote by Goethe (with slight modifications to ensure the language is inclusive)
Does the way a leader thinks about a team member impact the way they treat them? Absolutely.
And does the way they treat them change the way the team member performs and develops? Again, absolutely.
If we apply Goethe's logic, by thinking about a team member in terms of their potential, we help them fulfil that potential. Sounds simple, but the reality is that leaders often think about people in terms of first impressions, hearsay, personal compatibility, and a whole raft of other, often superficial, factors.
In this episode we discuss some fascinating research on the Pygmalion Effect, share some examples and observations from our work with organisations, and discuss how leaders can use this understanding to help people become what they are capable of becoming.
******************************************************
Want to check out how Authentic your organisation is? Take our free online Authentimeter Assessment tool here
You can find full shownotes for this episode and more here
Visit our website The Real Learning Experience
Follow us on instagram or Linked In
Got a question for the Podcast? You can drop us a voice message via instagram or email us at: theculturenerds@reallearning.com.au
Thanks to our Podcasting producer, Josh at Deadset Podcasting for all his work behind the scenes.
Thanks for listening!
“If you treat an individual as they are, they will remain how they are. But if you treat them as if they were what they ought to be and could be, they will become what they ought to be and could be.”
Quote by Goethe (with slight modifications to ensure the language is inclusive)
Does the way a leader thinks about a team member impact the way they treat them? Absolutely.
And does the way they treat them change the way the team member performs and develops? Again, absolutely.
If we apply Goethe's logic, by thinking about a team member in terms of their potential, we help them fulfil that potential. Sounds simple, but the reality is that leaders often think about people in terms of first impressions, hearsay, personal compatibility, and a whole raft of other, often superficial, factors.
In this episode we discuss some fascinating research on the Pygmalion Effect, share some examples and observations from our work with organisations, and discuss how leaders can use this understanding to help people become what they are capable of becoming.
******************************************************
Want to check out how Authentic your organisation is? Take our free online Authentimeter Assessment tool here
You can find full shownotes for this episode and more here
Visit our website The Real Learning Experience
Follow us on instagram or Linked In
Got a question for the Podcast? You can drop us a voice message via instagram or email us at: theculturenerds@reallearning.com.au
Thanks to our Podcasting producer, Josh at Deadset Podcasting for all his work behind the scenes.
Thanks for listening!
Before we get into today's episode, we want to acknowledge the privilege of living and working on Aboriginal land and we pay our respects to the elders, past, present and emerging. Hello listeners, welcome to another episode of the Culture Nerds a leadership podcast. My name is Kirill Lee and I have with me my co-host, simon. Welcome, simon.
Speaker 2:Hello Kirill Lee. I'm really pleased to be here feeling very chilled of just dialed in from a mystery location while I'm on holidays. You can probably tell that the mystery location is my home office, because the background is exactly the same as it is for most of us. I'm not being very exciting, am I for holidays, but really nice having a little bit of time off and really good to jump in and do a pod.
Speaker 1:Yes, it is Now. The topic of today's podcast was actually a podcast episode that you were listening to a few weeks ago.
Speaker 2:Yes, I know I'm infidelity. I've been podcast shooting and listening to a rival podcast, but we're both big fans of podcasts and I think that's one of the reasons we're passionate about recording a podcast. We both spend a lot of time in the car, chasing either going to see clients or travelling for work or just chasing our kids to the millions of sporting activities they seem to do, and so there's a podcast I sometimes listen to called no Stupid Questions, and this was one. I was travelling to do some work a couple of hours from here, and they had an episode called what's the Point of IQ Testing, and they introduced a concept that was completely unrelated to the direction we'll take this in today. But really, the synapses started firing as I listened to.
Speaker 2:It, came back, mentioned it to you and, in true investigative journalist style, you jumped on it. No, you did, you jumped on it and did a whole bunch of background, and so now I've just got sort of look, it's classic Simon and Kirill Lee, isn't it? I'm just generally excited about the idea. You've actually got a clue what it's all about, you've actually done some research and you're the substance on this easel.
Speaker 1:Thanks, simon. The topic that sat behind the no Stupid Questions subject of IQ was the Pygmalion Effect, which is a research study that was done. So the Pygmalion Effect is also known as the self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a psychological phenomenon where higher expectations lead to an increase in performance, and the concept is derived from a Greek myth in which Pygmalion, who was a sculptor, falls in love with his own creation, which is a statue named Galatea, and his intense belief in her beauty brings her to life. In the context of research, the Pygmalion Effect gained prominence through studies conducted by psychologist Robert Rensethol and Lenore Jacobson in the 1960s. Their research, often referred to as the Pygmalion in the classroom study, involved telling teachers that certain students were expected to experience significant intellectual growth during the academic year, based on the results of a fake test, when in reality, these students were selected randomly. The key findings of the Pygmalion Effect research included positive expectations lead to higher performance, so students who were labelled as having high intellectual potential due to false expectations show greater improvement in their academic performance compared to their peers. Self-fulfilling prophecy the positive expectations of the teachers influence their behaviour and interactions with the students, and the students in turn internalise these expectations, leading to improved performance. Non-verbal cues and feedback. Teachers unintentionally conveyed their expectations through non-verbal cues, body language and feedback. Students were sensitive to these cues and adjusted their behaviour accordingly. Confirmation bias teachers tended to interpret ambiguous or incomplete information in ways that confirm their initial expectations. This confirmation bias reinforced the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Speaker 1:Applicability beyond education while the initial research was focused on education, the Pygmalion Effect has been observed in various contexts, including the workplace and interpersonal relationships. Ethical considerations and the research raised ethical concerns about the potential harm caused by false labelling and expectations. It underscored the importance of being mindful of the impact of expectations on individuals. The Pygmalion Effect research has had a significant influence on the psychology, education and organisational behaviour. It highlights the powerful role that expectations play in shaping human behaviour and outcomes, emphasising the need for awareness and responsible management of expectations in various settings. So what we are going to do, now that we've given the research findings for context, is we are going to have a bit of a chat today about the Pygmalion Effect and how and the influence it has on overall culture within a workplace organisation by shaping the attitudes and behaviours and performance of team members.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and great background, carolina. Look, it took me back. I remember the Rosenthal study. I remembered reviewing that when I was at university. So it was a long time ago and it's an old study, but I want to go back to the core of it. Yeah, you're doing a lot of great facts there, but the core of it is when teachers in this case so in that particular study, we'll talk about leaders and workplace in a minute but when teachers believe that students had higher capability because they were told they had higher capability, not because of any specific evidence. The only evidence the teacher had was that they were told that going into the classroom, they treated the kids differently and therefore the kids did better. And in groups where they weren't given that information, the kids didn't make the same progress, regardless of their ability, regardless of all those other factors around their intellect, their natural ability, et cetera, et cetera. Their attitude Kids whose teachers believed in them did better than other kids, full stop. That, for me, is at the heart of it.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, and that was one of the main links when I did some further research as to the role the Pygmalion Effect plays in workplace culture. It was that positive expectations influence behavior. When leaders have positive expectations for their employees, they're more likely to treat them with respect and trust and support, and then this positive treatment from the leaders fosters a culture that promotes collaboration and open communication and mutual respect within the organization.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. And look, my challenge for our listeners, for the leaders out there I want you to genuinely think about the people in your team and your belief systems about them. And where have those beliefs come from? Sometimes you've come in, you've inherited a team and been given a handover. How dangerous are the preconceptions from that handover?
Speaker 2:Perhaps we come in and we perpetuate a situation in which someone underperforms because they had a relationship with a manager that was not functional, that didn't inspire high performance. That manager gives a handover to the next manager. One of the greatest indictments on the old manager is if that person does too well if they come in. If the new manager comes in and the person that the old manager thought of as less competent, what if they do really well? That looks really bad for the old manager because perhaps heaven forbid the issue was partly the manager. So they pass on this preconception. The new manager forms a belief that that person is less capable. Therefore they treat them differently and we'll dive into in and out groups a little bit later. But they treat them a bit differently and therefore they don't perform as well and it reinforces the belief they had in the first place. But potentially what's happening is that they're creating that own reinforcement through their own leadership, actions and beliefs.
Speaker 1:Simon, you touched on there that the preconceptions can be formed by a handover. Can you talk a little bit about if they can be formed in any other way?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, that was the obvious one, wasn't it?
Speaker 1:Because that one's like a baton being handed, and how often does that happen really, like that's happened to me before and there'd be a lot of leaders out there nodding that you've had a handover and they're just here to get paid or you're not going to get much out of them, and you do adopt that, don't you? You lead with that attitude towards them Because you're taking a handover from someone that you trust and someone that's been doing the role, and I would challenge anyone that perhaps gets that feedback. My question now, my question five, 10 years ago, probably I wouldn't have had a question. My question now would be tell me, why do you think that is?
Speaker 2:And not regret even starting.
Speaker 1:But I would, because I would ask, because what favor of leadership led us to here? Absolutely. But yeah, sorry, I'm now doing assignment and I'm side tracking off from where we are.
Speaker 2:Oh, you've done a double, simon, because you asked a question and then you answered it.
Speaker 1:And started talking about my own little topic. So sorry, simon. Back to my original question. What other ways?
Speaker 2:Just on that handover bit, because people will say but surely it's better to come in with my eyes open? There's a difference between eyes open and my made up, and that's a. Again. I want to challenge our listeners to look at their own process there. It could be they inherit someone from another team, from another department, from another store. Whatever it might be. The better question is because what managers do? They never really talk about whether someone's any good or not. What they should be doing is so what's the best way? How do I get the best out of this person? That's a really useful handover, and the honest answer from the old manager might be I don't know. I never figured that out Doesn't mean there's not a way, but I just never figured that out Because, exactly as you touched on, when someone doesn't perform as we expect them to, we can either blame them or we can look at the culture and the culture and leadership we're exposing them to.
Speaker 2:Now I'm no, I am an idealist, but I'm not naive, and I know there are people out there who won't perform no matter what, because they're not the right person in the right place. They were either a bad hire or things have gone sour or whatever, and they're just not the right person. But I think that's much rarer than someone underperforming because the climate, the leadership, doesn't get the best out of them. When we do that handover, we're inheriting the way people perform for the previous manager Doesn't mean they'll. I'll give you an example of this.
Speaker 2:I, in one senior executive role I worked in, I had someone who came to me. Now, this is not a story about me being a great leader. This was a bit of a success story for me as a leader. It was even more of a success story for the person involved. So I think I got this one quite right Not perfect, but I did a lot right. In this circumstance I've got a lot wrong. Don't think for a second. I'm not aware of that, but this particular person came to the organization quite scared from previous experiences in the workplace. She worked for a major electronics retailer with a really annoying song, and I'll let the listeners see if they can figure that one out. It's not just electronics retailer. They sell a lot of different stuff in different departments.
Speaker 1:I have no idea listeners, so if anyone Really yeah, their advertising is incredibly annoying.
Speaker 2:It's why they put mute buttons on remote this particular advertiser. So anyway, she came to the organization. What's that?
Speaker 1:I said rhymes with.
Speaker 2:Well, maybe another hint is I can't actually think of Well Mormon, okay. So she came to the organization quite damaged by the previous leadership she'd been exposed to and I'm not first, second, suggesting every manager, every leader at that organization is a bad one, but she was exposed to someone who, whenever something went wrong, basically what you had to do was run for the hills Because if you were the slowest you were gonna cop the blame, you were gonna cop the flak. It was all about blame and fault and all that sort of stuff, not about learning. And so she was really tentative. She was quite reluctant to make decisions. She had a lot of trepidation around what a relationship with a manager might look like, and it took quite a number of years well, it took nearly two years to really get to a point where we'd established enough trust in my leadership that she would take some risks. She'd have really strong opinions. She'd tell me what she thought. She'd know that I might challenge her. I might say, look, is that? Tell me more about that or why do you think that? But it was a healthy relationship.
Speaker 2:Not long after I left, I got a call from a manager who had inherited that team. Now there were a number of people that went into that position. This was someone new from outside the organization. The reason I say that is I know some of the other managers in that organization still listen to this show. So I'm gonna be really clear.
Speaker 2:It was someone who came in and I didn't know, but someone had recommended he call me and because he had some questions. His question was what's wrong with this person? How did you deal with them? They're such a problem and I was pretty blunt, mainly because I didn't give a shit, I didn't know them, and partly because he really annoyed me because he took this arrogant attitude towards someone that I had found incredible value in and that I liked as a human being and respected as a colleague, and I pointed out bluntly I didn't have an issue, maybe the problem is you. And he could not comprehend that it was beyond his scope of not where he was at in his leadership journey and I used the phrase leadership journey lightly because he had gone in with a completely different leadership style that took her back to those bad old days and she'd responded by retreating.
Speaker 2:Now, that's a long way of describing when we inherit someone and we get a handover briefing that tells us that person's either good or bad. How do we know that that's accurate for the person that is working in our team? Or is that actually a reflection on the leader that's giving us that handover briefing? Did they, because of their belief system, create that Pygmalion effect? And Pygmalion can work all the way, can't it? If I've got a really negative belief about you, then you're likely to respond to that in a certain way and your performance will decline. If I've got a really positive belief about you, your performance will improve.
Speaker 1:So I'm an unpicture, and if I was one of our listeners and I didn't have the background information that I had now, I guess we could talk briefly before you do actually answer the question I asked you about 15 minutes ago. No, no, no, if they're in a situation.
Speaker 1:If anyone is in a situation where they do get a handover, where they do experience this, I guess my advice well, I know my advice would be ask some questions around why that's so, try to establish. Why is it? Are they poor performers because they've been allowed, they're comfortable with poor performing and they've been given a space where they can feel comfortable? Is it because of the reasons that you just outlined there?
Speaker 1:But I think it's really important from this part of the conversation that we've just had is, if you are someone that does get a handover like that, or if you're someone that gets a staff briefing, what do you do in that moment to really challenge why that is where the status is now? I guess for me it's not just that might be the case, but I still think there should be some questions asked back to that person giving you the handover as to why. Because we really want to start off giving that staff member or that team member the benefit of the doubt or, if not, it's a really good opportunity to really set that you know, the bookends of high performance, clarity and accountability, to be able to start that off with going with the leadership style that they perhaps need to really have that clear expectations and accountability of where you would like that person and their role to head in the direction of.
Speaker 2:Look, I'd ask them the questions exactly as you say. So, questions like so what are they good at? What have you tried in order to work with them more effectively when they do good work? What does that look like? Now, if they look at you like you're an idiot, then you know what you got. Your answer. Is that me?
Speaker 1:It's me.
Speaker 2:That's exactly right. They are the problem because it hasn't even entered their mind to do that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that will happen. The reality is that you will come across leaders and people will have come across it before and you may be one of those leaders. If you really look hard and reflect on the way you are, you know, do you shy away from giving really honest feedback and do you shy away? Do you have poor performance in your team that you think that maybe just cruise along because they're left to cruise along rather than have those really honest conversations with accountability?
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely. There's another great question, isn't there? So how do they respond? When you gave them this feedback, oh, I haven't given them feedback, or I haven't really, I'm sort of trying to work it. You know what You're the problem right now? Now, once the leader has done their job and everything they can and obviously no one's perfect, but everything they reasonably can and there's still a problem, now I'm starting to believe that, potentially, it's the team member that's the problem, but if the leader hasn't even done those things, then they're a big part of the problem. If they have done those things, then you're going to get a much more comprehensive briefing.
Speaker 2:My suggestion to a manager, though, is to go in and start from scratch and have the. Really, I would sit with the person and say I know in the past there's been some issues, but none of them have been with me, and I'm going to start from scratch. My mind is a blank canvas. I believe you can do great things, and I'm going to work with you on that basis until you prove it otherwise or until that doesn't work. But we're focused on new managers or managers getting a handover.
Speaker 2:This can also just happen from incompatibility, so there's some study and it's a lighter area of study but intuitively makes sense about in groups and out groups, whether managers form and, by the way, managers if you're the one sitting there going, oh I've just got one group, I'm calling bullshit because there's a 99% chance you've got a group. Someone in one of our courses actually said this perfectly you don't know there's an out group unless you're in it, absolutely. And so 99% of teams. And if there's one or two people in your team, I get it. But if you've got four or five or six, I'm pretty sure that you might have some people who feel more in group and some people who feel more out group?
Speaker 1:Absolutely, and you can. An out group can be created from the smallest of things Like this isn't big things that create out groups and I often talk about in my workshops when I'm working with people. I look back now and we used to have a Friday. We used to go to launch on a Friday and I thought that it was whoever wanted to come would come. We'd have a standing booking at the same place we went to and some weeks we'd have two people, some weeks we'd have seven or eight people. And about two years into doing this, we found that people felt like they needed to be invited and we were like, oh my gosh, people haven't been coming because they felt like they needed to be invited. That is an in and out group. That is how easy.
Speaker 2:I get what you're doing here. I say what you're taking this? This is about the whole nerd thing, isn't it? You're trying to prove that you won the cool kids. I was on the group, I wasn't.
Speaker 1:No, but I'm just saying that's how easy an in and out group is formed. And we were going to lunch most weeks so we had no idea that people felt that way and we were absolutely mortified when we realized that people felt like it was like an invitation thing. We just assumed that everyone knew and that's as easy as it is. So it doesn't necessarily have to be something big that happens to create in and out groups. It can be something really simple. It can be a morning tea timing thing. It can be some people sit at a certain place in the tea room and others sit elsewhere. It can be the most minute things that create in and out groups. And 100% right. What that person said in one of our workshops was you don't know that there's an out group until you're in it and you know what it can be.
Speaker 2:so you've used some social examples there. It can be the manager looking around, think I need something done. Who can I get them to do it? I can always rely upon them. And the person sitting there who's got unused capacity and maybe doesn't have the same level of confidence or hasn't built the relationship with the manager or whatever, hasn't had the opportunity to show their capabilities and in that moment the manager just reinforced it. So one person got another chance to prove their capabilities and to connect with the manager. The other person felt a bit more isolated and become a little bit more underestimated.
Speaker 1:All the situation where you might have some part time or casual workers in the team that either work remotely or are not always there, and teams might grab opportunities for meetings and it just happens to be that certain people are either working remotely and can't dial in or not there on the days. That's how in and out groups are formed. It's purely let's grab some time and have a chat about this. But when someone's constantly not there, it feels like why aren't I a part of this? And it's innocent that everyone's just okay, let's have a meeting about that now and chat about it. That's another way that we've seen, especially post COVID, when we've had people returning to work and people working remotely. That's a really common way that in and out groups can sometimes form, or the perception of in and out groups can form by people who are feeling on the out group Absolutely.
Speaker 2:I'm really interested. I have that same thought. I wonder. I'd love to see research on in and out groups post COVID, because you would think that it's got a lot worse. You would think that there are people because of working arrangements, because of remoteness, because of distance, because of part time, because of hybrid stuff, there are people that are much more likely to be in on things because they happen in the office and people who it's not deliberate, but we had that conversation. Those people weren't here. It's that lack of awareness of that and you end up with people I do wonder.
Speaker 2:I think it could be a really interesting study for someone to do around the formation in and out groups in the modern world. I think what it really comes down to is it could be based on that handover, but it could also be based upon my preconceptions of someone it could be based upon. And one of the biggest drivers of in and out groups is personality. If you're like me as the leader, you're much more likely to be on the in group and I'm much more likely to rate you highly. After all, you must be amazing because you're like me. That other person over there they're nothing like me, so there must be something wrong with them. I know we don't consciously think this, but it's that emotional reaction, isn't it? I feel really comfortable with them. I get them, I understand them. Sometimes you know what it could be that this is the person that's most valuable in the team, because they're the one that doesn't just nod at you and smile, the one that challenges you. Do they make you uncomfortable? Absolutely, is it awkward sometimes? Hopefully, but does that then lead to us having a different and a lesser perception of their performance? Can easily happen, particularly with a leader that's not necessarily as secure as they could. If they question their own belief, if they feel threatened by their own ability, if they feel threatened by any of that. Absolutely, so I think it can form in many ways. We started the show by really focusing on that one which is around. Well, I'm just coming in, I'm giving a hand over, yeah, yeah, this can happen in many other ways.
Speaker 2:Can I read a quote that was in that podcast and that I love? It's a quote by Gough and I'm going to read it verbatim. So, excuse the gender bias in the quote. I get that in this day and age, hopefully, we would have people expressing these things in different ways, but I'm going to read it as it is If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is, but if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.
Speaker 2:Those are such powerful words for a leader If you look at people and see their potential and treat them in that way, rather than just seeing what they are today. Now that might mean you're a bit more demanding with them, that you won't let them settle for mediocre, but you'll do it in a way that expresses belief. It won't be what's wrong with you. You're not up to scratch. It will be. You're capable of so much more. I've got such belief in your ability. What can I do to help you get there? And I think that's the Pygmalion part of it Seeing people and that was the original Pygmalion story seeing someone as they could be and treating them that way until they became that thing that they achieved what was always seen in them.
Speaker 2:But it starts with that. It starts with being willing to see that in people, and then the next step is being willing to treat them that way, as though they already were what you see in them as a leader, because then they step up to that mark, don't they? If someone treats you that way, you want to do better. You feel almost an obligation, you feel a sense of belief, a sense of purpose, and you just step up. If someone sees you as just not worth the effort, then you step down and we've always got the choice about how we react, but really how we use that choice to make. Sometimes we just go. I'll just come to work and do what I have to and hope no one notices me and we'll all work for managers like that.
Speaker 1:Absolutely. When leaders can have positive expectations of their people, then their people will feel valued and encouraged. They'll feel valued, they'll be encouraged to that discretionary effort will lift and the performance will lift as well.
Speaker 2:And when we first talked about this episode, you said to me but Simon, isn't it just common sense? And what you just said is common sense. The problem with common sense is it's not very common. It also requires us to put aside all our own judgments, all our own preconceptions, all our own value positions, and we can be.
Speaker 2:A lot of humans, leaders include are guilty of such lazy thinking. It's so easy to just go oh well, that's who they are and put a badge on them and put them in that box. That's who they are forever. And what we have to accept as leaders is it's just lazy thinking. We can do better than that. And it starts with and I'll go back to the quote it starts with seeing people for what they ought and could be, what they ought to be and could be, and seeing them that way and treating them that way until that's what they become. And this is where leaders who have regular conversations off the job and non logistical with their people thrive, because they start to have those conversations that help them see those things and in those conversations they also get to express that belief and start to coach people towards what they're capable of doing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, A positive pigmaline effect relies on that open and transparent communication.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:To be able to have those conversations. If you feel like you can't see someone for their potential or you haven't seen what they're capable of yet, I would challenge you that have you had a conversation where you ask some questions to learn about? You know what are they challenged by? Where do their interests lie? Why haven't you seen it yet?
Speaker 1:Ask them some questions coach them through the process and when people, when you create these safe environments for open and transparent conversations and communication, employees and team members are more likely to share their ideas and concerns and feedback in an environment where they know that the communication that they're sharing will be valued and where leaders can express their positive responses and expectations.
Speaker 2:So if I could finish just with a challenge to our leaders yes, look at every person in your team through fresh arts. Yes, absolutely Before you look at them. Next you'll have your and I'm using I'm air quoting here for that. It works really well on a podcast or calls air quoting but you'll have your favorites, and what I mean by favorites? The ones that you can easily see the potential in, that you connect with easily, that things are humming along with that. You have some in the middle and you have some others that you struggle to get.
Speaker 2:Look at them all with fresh eyes, but particularly those ones who you don't as readily see their potential. And is that because you're looking at them through eyes filtered by preconception, by judgment, by your own limitations of thinking? And if you remove those filters, what would you see? What would they be capable of? Would you see them differently? And if you would, and they're not performing as you'd like them to, then put the heat in yourself, because a lot of that lies with you as the leader. If you've been through all of that, but genuinely, don't just nod and pat yourself on the back. But if you've been through all that and genuinely have and you still got someone who's not at the level you need them to be. Well, maybe, maybe they're not the right person in the right place, but I would say 95% of the time, a significant part of the issue is the whole Pygmalion effect. I know I've said my final word and I know I do this often.
Speaker 1:Well, we all know that your final word means that there's at least two more. No, don't we listen, as we know that?
Speaker 2:I'm in holiday mode, I'm very chilled and I have nothing more to say except one closing statement. But I'll, I'll, I'll wait to see what you've got to add.
Speaker 1:No, no, I was just. I'm. I'm quite I'm really happy with where we've landed on that.
Speaker 2:Excellent. Well, we will do another podcast very soon and in the meantime, listeners stay authentic.
Speaker 1:Thank you, listeners. We will be back shortly.
Speaker 2:Told you it was my final word.