Why your team isn't delivering (and how to fix it)

What if the secret to breakthrough results isn't working harder but making better promises? Bob Dunham, founder of the Institute for Generative Leadership, reveals the power of trustworthy commitments in creating extraordinary outcomes.

Dunham challenges the mechanistic approach dominating today's workplace, where employees are treated as production units rather than humans with creative potential. "We've left out being human; everything's being mechanized," he explains. He goes on to explain that this blindness to our human capacity restricts the value that can be created, and waking up to this opens up a whole new world.

At the heart of Dunham's Generative Leadership discipline lies a powerful distinction between responsibility and accountability that transforms how we approach work. While many use these terms interchangeably, Dunham clarifies and contrasts them, leading us to reject blame and excuses, and focus instead on what can be done despite inevitable challenges.

Dunham shares how he applied these principles to turn around a Silicon Valley software engineering department that hadn't delivered products in two and a half years. The key wasn't superhuman effort, but rather creating systems that supported responsibility at all levels.

For listeners struggling with accountability issues, unmotivated teams, or untrustworthy commitments, this conversation offers practical wisdom on building cultures where people consistently deliver superior results by reconnecting our humanity with our work.

We want to thank the team that continues to support us in producing, editing and sharing our work. Jonah Smith for the heartfelt intro music you hear at the beginning of each podcast. We LOVE it. Hillary Rideout for writing descriptions, designing covers and helping us share our work on social media. Chad Penner for his superpower editing work to take our recordings from bumpy and glitchy to smooth and easy to listen to episodes for you to enjoy. From our hearts, we are so thankful for this team and the support they provide us.

Chapters

• 0:00 Meeting Bob Denham
• 4:42 Introducing Generative Leadership
• 9:38 The Human Element in Leadership
• 13:20 The Power of Commitment
• 18:14 Managing Breakdowns and Trust
• 27:22 Silicon Valley Turnaround Story
• 32:45 Responsibility vs. Accountability Explained

Transcript

 Hi, my name is Charles Feldman and my name is Ila Edgar. And we are here for another episode of Trust on Purpose. Today we have a dIlaghtful guest. I'm squealing on the inside because I'm so looking forward to this conversation. And our guest today is Bob Dunham. I'm gonna pass it over to you in a moment to introduce yourself.

I've followed Bob's work for many, many, many years, as I'm sure Charles, you have as well. I continue to learn so much from you and the incredible work that you do. So we're we're really, really grateful that you've made time with us today. Well, I'm grateful for you. Thank you. So tell us who are you? Maybe give our listeners a little bit of an intro and who is Bob Dunham?

Well, my identity in the world is probably most well known as the founder of the Institute for Generative Leadership and the designer of what's now called the Generative Leadership Discipline. That has been a product of work of over 40 years. And leadership's a very interesting domain because I don't think we know what it is.

When you see that there are hundreds of claims of frameworks, it's like, oh, we don't seem to have a fundamental understanding. So the generative leadership discipline is rooted in what I would call essential, unavoidable aspects of being human. What's been true for humans throughout their history?

What's true for everybody today, and what will be true hundreds of years from now? What are the aspects of reality that. Show up in the particular concern of how do we take action together to produce not just results, but value, satisfaction, meaning, and a good life, uh, both at the individual level, the group level, the community level, and the world.

What we found in this approach is that everything that I just named arises in conversations and so. That kind of was the discovery of the domain of leadership, the domain of management, the domain of human interaction of relationship is conversation. And uh, this is counter to common sense, which says conversations are a waste of time.

Let's get busy, busy with what requires a conversation to what standard requires a conversation. Who's gonna do it? Requires it. So conversations lined up, driving everything. Including not just our external action, but our internal states. I am sad the conversation describes it, but the conversation can also trigger it and generate it.

So it's a pretty powerful framework. And the word generative refers to the fact that as human beings, we're generating our experience, we're generating our actions, we're generating our future all the time. But there are so many conversations in which we think we're not, that's not me. I don't have any choice there.

That's, that's the world. And so generative starts from a fundamental principle that we have choice. No matter what's going on externally, we always have the choice of how we respond to it and can't dictate to the universe what it's gonna do, but we always have a choice of how we dance with it. So that's the fundamental principle of being generative.

And that led to us among other conversations with my colleague Samir ua, who's not here because he's facing health issues at the moment. And Samir and I found in our work in organizations that the question of what's the difference between responsibility and accountability comes up all the time. So we wrote a book called The Power of Owning Up, that not only explains a generative interpretation of.

The difference, the relevance, how to do them, but really taps into the power to create the future and make it happen. So, mm-hmm. Long story, but I hope that gives some context for who I am. And just to be clear, my passion in all of this is was never leadership. It was always a fascination with being human.

And leadership happened to be the place where that could be expressed, uh, in a practical way. Mm-hmm. I love that you add that human elephant, or sorry, elephant element. There's the first blip. There we go. That human element, and Charles and I often talk about this, can we more and more normalize that we live in a human experience and I give out knitted hearts when I facilitate in person, because I want people to remember before any title, any credential.

Any education, any role, whatever that is. We all live in a human experience, and so how do we normalize that more and more? And so I love that that's such an important part of the work that you do. Well, that's so obvious to you and me, but for the mainstream common sense, the logic of our culture is not that human beings are being human, but that they have to imitate machines.

You have a job. Your job is to produce these numbers and results, and we're gonna. Assess you based on the numbers. And this, I bIlaeve is probably the biggest issue of our age in our era, which is we've left out being human and everything's being, uh, being mechanized. And when you don't know you're human, you don't have much choice about it.

So waking up to that opens up a whole new world. And it's not just a world of internal experience. Let's go to the mountaintop and. Commune with the divine. It's actually part of the world of action in every moment. And uh, that's my fascination. Mm-hmm. I like that, Bob, that this is for where in our era, in our age, we're kind of stuck in roles that dehumanize us. Laura and I were in Antwerp a while back in, in, uh, Belgium and there was a Museum of work there, and you can go and see sort of starting back in the, you know, beginning of the industrial age, right. How work has evolved and it, you can see how that whole process happened. It's fascinating. So it, first of all, it's, it's kind of new in that sense

It's not age old at the same time. You can see how we've been living in that suit for a while. Yeah. And extricating ourselves is a little challenging. Well, my experience with the extrication is that when you realize that action is not depressing your humanity and becoming a good machine for external results, it's that actually all action is defined and, uh, aligned and coordinated.

With the internal states of people being primary, there's no action that happens without someone being committed to them. That's an internal state. That simple awareness changes the world and all of a sudden become action becomes a world of people rather than machines producing external, external results.

Yeah. Mm-hmm. If we can normalize that ela, it'll be a gift too, and I want to be clear here. My, my explorations over four decades is this is not simply humanizing work and having people be, it actually produces much better work results better, change better outcomes, because the, the blindness to our human capacity to invent together really, uh, restricts the value that we can, can be created in business, in teams and organizations.

We have to reconnect the domain of action and the internal powerhouse where all action actually is generated from inside of people. Mm-hmm. And I wanna pull on a word that keeps coming up in our conversation around commitment. And so when we are committed not only to the work, but that to the development as a leader, as a human being.

That's not a half day workshop or, you know, a quick and dirty seminar that we're gonna take online and suddenly things are gonna be different. So can, can we talk a little bit about what does that commitment look like that allows a team or an organization to produce results like that? Because I think that's where you've really been masterful in your work.

Well, great question. Before we go to what commitment, I think we need to say what is commitment? 'cause uh, a lot of people say, well, commitment is, uh, the, the agreement, you know, it's in the contract. That's, that's your commitment. And again, it's a distraction. It's an externalizing of something. So what I found, and I was lucky that I had this experience early in my career.

Commitment is an internal state inside of you. Mm-hmm. And it's basically saying there's a piece of the future that I'm committing to. So. I'm gonna take action to have that piece of the future turn out a particular way. And it doesn't imprison me if I'm awake to the phenomenon 'cause I can change it. But it's what guides me.

It's what shapes my actions now to have a piece of the future show up with the result with a, an experience, with a mood, with a relationship. And so we start with commitments inside you and people. Have whole ranges of commitment. Mm-hmm. Where they think commitment is relevant and not where commitment is strong or weak.

That one I'll show, I'll give a practical example. One kind of understanding of commitment in the world of action in work and organizations is I make commitments of the activities I'm gonna be engaged in. I will work on this. That is a very different commitment than I'm promising the outcome of the work.

That's a huge difference. And most people say, well, I can't promise you outcomes. And there's a whole host of reasons. One is fear. Another is I'm actually not competent how to, how to make that promise. And yet in our work we found that what makes us a professional, it's not our expertise or our hard work or the fact we're paid.

What makes this a professional to a generative standard is that you can make promises and fulfill them that satisfy customers. Then this internal state is super pragmatic in the world of action, in the world of business, in the world of teams, it's fundamental and it's inescapable. So if this actually takes us to the accountability issue, 'cause there's so many places where people say, well this person's not performing.

You gotta hold them accountable. And well, what's the commitment that was made? And are you even aware of the quality of the commitment? The level of the commitment and this particular kind of commitment that we're talking about today called responsibility is I'm making a commitment as a promise, not as an intent.

I'm committing to an outcome. I'm doing it to a standard that you can trust it, and I am taking a posture with it that I'm going to do this no matter what. If there's breakdowns, changes, uh, surprises, I'm still gonna be committed and will do my utmost to fulfill it. That's kind of the highest level of commitment.

I think that in a professional or personal way, you can trust me, I'm committed, I'm gonna do whatever I can to make it happen. Mm-hmm. That doesn't mean I sacrifice to it. And get unreasonable because there's standards for that too. Sometimes you say by golly, I'm sure trying, but I don't think I can do it.

Mm-hmm. You know, to this time or, or standard. Mm-hmm. Then people can trust each other in talking about the future and making commitments. So one of the big breakdowns around responsibility and accountability is people actually don't know how to assess and trust the work that you two are. Deeply masters in how to make commitments.

You can trust both the person who is committing and the person who's accepting the commitment as you were describing, you know, making a promise. I'm committed to the outcome, to the standards we've defined. I will do this no matter what. I could feel somatically the level of commitment if we're making commitments like that.

Yeah. I was on a call the other day doing some semantic work around writing and we were, we were talking about making commitments in our writing and the difference between, you know, bringing a commitment in and like really feIlang it versus it's just a commitment. It's just a task. Right. And even you, I can feel that in my body right now, but I think that's how many people in organizations hold.

Perhaps their, their job duties or their, you know, their job description or the tasks that they've been asked to do. Well, yeah. I'll get it done and I'm, I'm flipping my hand again on purpose because they're not skilled and don't know how to make that level of commitment to the outcome. Yes. Not just, sure, sure.

I'll get that done for you. Yeah, that, so there's two things that show up in your, in your comment that I think are important. One is, how do you assess the trustworthiness of the permit? What, what part of it can you count on? Or whether it's maybe because there's lots of these, as I said, there's a spectrum.

It's a good intent, it's an obligation. Mm-hmm. The people use commitment to cover all of those. When I first ran into this, the game I played with commitment was, I'm not gonna make a commitment unless I really own it. I don't want to have hopes and maybes and yeah, tries, and it gave me a big gift. One was that I had to learn to say no because not everything, not everything I could say yes to in that way.

Yeah. The second thing it taught me was when I made that commitment. Things really go sideways. I have to have the courage and the competence and the readiness to say there's a problem here with that commitment and I need to change it. I'm still gonna be fully committed to it. But I, the fundamental commitment that I would say I've learned over these decades is commitment is a piece of the future that each of us takes responsibility for that.

We're counting on each other to have that piece of the future happen. That's a trustworthy commitment. Mm-hmm. And if it changes, if for some reason, and there are reasons that life gets in the way, you're still committed to commitment. So I may need to change the commitment, but when I do, it's gonna have the same quote.

Now I'm changing it, but now I'm holding it as trustworthy to the best assessment I can make because. Sometimes we're making a promise and a commitment that I've made 500 times and you can count on me, and sometimes I'm making a commitment to design and execute a project that I've never done before. Now I can have the same level of standard for being trustworthy in the commitments I make, but that means I have to be honest about what level of trust can we have for my promise.

Then we can coordinate. Then we're on the same page. That's kind of the call for rigor and clarity, the agreement. How are we doing here? Yeah. Can I ask a question, Bob? Is it something that, as I'm listening to you, obviously, um, you know, we make commitments to other people. We're not making commitments.

Sometimes we make commitments to ourselves, but generally what we're really talking about is other people. So in that, and you're, you're asking the question, how, how do we. How do we assess the trustworthiness of that other person's commitment? It strikes me that that's a big piece of the dance of work that we do with each other, or interaction conversations that we have with each other is around making and acknowledging trustworthy commitments.

Absolutely. Absolutely. So what happens when a commitment. Is broken if, if a person fails to, even though all those pieces seem to be there, how, how do, how do we hold that? Well when promises can't be fulfilled? There are a couple of categories that our experience has of, of why that's the case. Sometimes the world intervenes, you know, I'm gonna pick you up at two.

Oh, the car broke down. I'm on the side of the road. Sorry. Yeah. But what's my commitment to keep our shared future up to date? So I will let you know. Yeah. And so breakdowns of that sort are part of the game, but you still are being trustworthy if you have a way to handle those breakdowns that show up that are outside our, our, our control, that would affect the problem.

The other category of breakdown is I didn't perform. I didn't act responsibly, I didn't do what I should. And that's the way to produce trust there is to say I screwed up. Mm-hmm. And I'm willing to recommit. I'm willing to rebuild trust given that. And the third is I've done this many times, but this particular time turned out to be different.

The assessments I had when I made the promise turned out not to be effective. And so. What kind of commitment do we make to be trustworthy? Does it mean it's perfect and guarantee No, it's never a guarantee. It's the best assessment of assurance for the future that I can make, that, you know, I hold as an issue of integrity of my identity and I'm, I'm gonna do the best I can with it and break down some changes may happen, so let's talk about it if that's the case.

So the trust is in how we manage reality, not that there's some kind of magic wand to make the perfect promise. Yeah. And so I'm thinking, I'm thinking about my experiences of my own as well as other people's experience coming into a work setting, you want to be trusted, will assume they want to be trusted.

So they want to, how do I put this? We want to. Fulfill a trustworthy role. Exactly. And I think from mine and Ila's experience, often people don't have the skillset to do that. They don't know how, they haven't learned how to do that in many instances. Yes. And I think one of the things you're kind of pointing at is that we can't just assume if I'm.

Working with someone and they're new to me, I'm gonna have to make some assessments about how I can trust them, to what extent I can trust them. Ultimately, experience will tell me how well I'm, well we'll know. As you know, there are levels of competence in different domains. We all have them in this domain.

I'm a super expert in this other domain. I'm a withering idiot. So the kind of promise you can rely on for me is different in those two areas. And I found this Charlotte in, uh, early in my career where junior people would often over commit. Mm-hmm. They're trying to do a good job. They want to impress, but they don't have the experience of making those assessments.

And they think their enthusiasm can replace their expertise, their competence and making it. Yeah. And so that leads to an issue of responsibility. If that person commits and doesn't fulfill, do we blame them? When they were junior and inexperienced, and the level of responsibility for a leader is if you accept an untrustworthy promise, you take responsibility for that.

You don't blame the other person. Mm-hmm. That's part of the responsibility of being a leader is I'm responsible for the agreements we make, and so I need to have, be on the lookout. If this person lacks the experience or lacks the competence or I don't know, then I need to have a conversation to take care of that.

We double check. We see if they have the fundamentals in place to trust their assessment. So I, when I first started, I found that I would, in that situation where I first started playing with this, it was a wonderful learning ground. I was a newly made program manager for 250 software engineers being, uh, managed by 22 managers, working on 35 products, and I was the program.

Manager, which meant I was supposed to be creating a plan and execute for all of these people to succeed. And I'd never done it before. And not only that, this group of people had been, up until I joined them, had been so ineffective. They had not gotten the product out the door in two and a half years.

And Silicon Valley, that's a patent. That's death. That's not good. And so I was invited to take on the role and said yes, and then all of a sudden I said. Holy shit, what am I gonna do now? Um, I was lucky because I had this framework of  commitments made in conversation, trust and managing them.

I had that available to me and I said, okay, what's my job? My job is to make a promise for this 250 engineered for all 35 products. And I did, I did something very important. I said, I will only make promises that I trust that we can fulfill. And then I said, so now I have to organize what was called a system release of all 35 products of what we're promising for all 35 products with the 22 managers.

And I discovered something, I would say, here's what marketing requested you do with the product A, B, C, D, E, FT. And they say, yes. Then I said, are you sure? Do you have the capacity? So I found that I needed to take responsibility for Katrina. I couldn't just make a request and get a yes and say, okay, I did my job.

Mm-hmm. I was responsible to make a promise we could trust, and when I had a sense that an agreement was being made that wasn't trustworthy, I would have a following conversation. And when I had these situations, it wasn't because people were being untrustworthy, that they knew they couldn't, they actually weren't competent.

Mm-hmm. To say yes or no. They didn't know how to make assessments. They didn't know how to make plans. And so as the, what we call the customer for the promise, I saw, I was responsible that the people who were promising could make trustworthy promises. And then when they didn't know how to make that assessment, I would help them not blame them.

Mm-hmm. Because it had not been part of their education. And that was actually a large part of why the department had not functioned previously. No one was really managing promises and capacity. They overcommitted, said yes to everything and delivered nothing, even though they were working their assets off, you know?

And so I changed the game. Mm-hmm. But I had to learn to listen. Is this promise trustworthy? Yeah. How do we make that assessment? And if you're not trying around to do it, let's explore that together because I wanna make sure when we make this agreement, because I am gonna hold you accountable and I don't wanna hold you accountable, something that you don't feel you know how to fulfill, and that we produce a breakthrough.

In six months, we delivered all 35 products on time, on budget to the promises we'd fulfilled with a couple of. Exceptions out of, you know, 150 promises. It's because we really managed the trust in the agreements and the agreements. Mm-hmm. So one of the things I'd love to spend a bit of time on before we need to wrap up is, so what is the difference between accountability and responsibility?

Good question. I think those two names, those two words are used a lot. As interchangeable and, and they're not, and we looked at the roots of the words. They're very different. And using them as the same thing produces a lot of confusion and people don't know what to do. Mm-hmm. What we discovered in our research and explained in depth in, in the book, the Power of Owning Up, I would say it this way.

Accountability is holding someone to account. You said you were gonna deliver three eggs. When the moment comes that you said you were gonna deliver, we're gonna count. Did you deliver three eggs? Yes. And we will say, you did or you didn't. What's missing in that is the consequence. What happens if you only deliver two or none?

That's a missing conversation. And a lot of people complain because accountability is not held and they see poor performers not being held accountable and it produces a lot of frustration. So you need to have not only the accountability. To a promise, and there we go, was it a trustworthy promise?

Yeah. And then through the process of breakdowns, did we keep up to date so that we're on the same page? So accountability has two characteristics. It's about a relationship with someone else, and you're assessing the past. You can't hold someone to be accountable for a result in the future. Hadn't happened yet.

So accountability is about the past and the performance of someone else. Responsibility is very different. Responsibility is a state of commitment. Mm-hmm. It's a commitment you have with yourself. It's really your relationship of how committed are you to commitment itself. And it's saying, what is my commitment?

What is my responsibility for the future? And in the book we say it's a, it's a commitment to produce an outcome that matters. That you will take action to fulfill no matter what happens. So that's a stance of ownership. The enemy of responsibility is blame excuses. Oh yeah. So since life and breakdowns are part of the game when you commit.

And breakdowns happen. You don't use that as an excuse to say, I'm not committed anymore. You say, I'm still committed. What can I do? Yeah. And it leads to some very powerful practices. When I applied this with my teens in the Silicon Valley situation, I taught them about, uh, what we call breakdowns.

Something that would put a promise in jeopardy, and they would announce their breakdowns. They'd say, good, whatcha gonna do about it? They'd say, huh? I said. No, no, no. Don't just report the problem. What are you gonna do about it? Right. Which is the act of responsibility. And so we made that into a practice called a recovery plan, and you recovered the promise.

What's your plan? And so we supported their responsibility through the shape of that practice. Accountability often shows up in the dreaded performance review. Yeah. I think that's a whole other episode. Well, yeah. Really. No kidding. I've solved the performance review problem because the reason performance reviews don't work is you don't have the conversation, you're not clear about the background of assessment and you're surprised.

Yeah, and, and it happens once a year, whatever. I wound up having promise review meetings with every one of my direct reports every week. Hmm. We got up to date on every promise, every breakdown. We're always on the same page. Tim, when performance review came time, it was trivial because we were on the same page the whole time.

Mm-hmm. And that's managing accountability and my responsibility as a customer for promises from others in order to fulfill a promise on behalf of the team. That framework really was super powerful and why we went from a non-functional department to delivering at a level that had never been seen before in the company in six months.

You were talking about having promise review meetings. Oh, and when you said that my body just went, oh. That feels collaborative, that feels supportive, that doesn't feel like me coming with my list of things I've accomplished and hoping that I don't get in shit from my leader.

Yeah, that's not the point. The promise for you meeting is a moment of coordination where the simple question is, has anything changed since the last time we've connected? Either party can say that, and the intent is. We're managing this promise together. We're both committed to it. What's going on with it?

Uh, do we have any breakdowns to manage? And in terms of breakdowns, there's a lovely structure that we discovered. There's only four possible answers to the state of a promise that goes through the world of breakdowns as they all do. One is everything's fine. We're on track, no action needed. Number two, we have a breakdown.

I'm letting you know, so you're not surprised by it. We're gonna recover and here's what we're doing. And so we'll keep you up to date, no action needed. Uh, number three, we've had a breakdown. This looks like a big one outside of our capacity to recover. Mm-hmm. And we can't recover without some assistance.

Can you assist? But we need resources, time, whatever. Mm-hmm. And the fourth is that there is a breakdown. Even with help, we don't see, given the situation, that the original promise can be maintained. So we need to renegotiate it. And from the point of view of being a customer for a promise, a responsible, by the way, when I say customer for the promise, the only reason you're a customer for the promise promises, you're a performer for, for that promise to someone else.

So you're playing both roles. Yeah. That's why we're all interested. To have people in both roles be on the same page. And so that structure of one of four answers that allowed us to see where we are and what's the appropriate action, allowed us to have very efficient promise review meetings as a team.

We didn't do one hour a week with 22 managers because that structure was in place, and then it was also the structure that guided us. What I would do with my direct reports, we'd have one-on-one meetings and we'd review all the promises together. We actually called that the Managing Action Practice, where Action meant Promise.

Mm-hmm. And it was amazing 'cause we got on the same page. We stayed on the same page, we navigated through the changes, and we dIlavered on time. You know what strikes me in, in listening to you talk about that, Bob, is that. The whole promise Customer performer relationship. Yeah. Which is often viewed as, okay, you know, I make a request to make a commitment or promise to my request and now I'm done.

Now I'm the customer. I'm just waiting around for you to dIlaver, is not how it actually is, can work effectively. That it really is an ongoing conversation between perhaps the, not just the customer and the performer, but other, sometimes other. Customers and performers in that larger cycle or sphere.

Exactly. I would call that the language we use of someone who takes that postures, they're an uncommitted customer because the customer has to be committed to the promise as much as the performer. Mm-hmm. It's our promise. It's not yours. But as you, as you say that, I'm thinking about Charles, about the domain of care in the framework.

Right. We are equally committed to the goal or the promise. And so we do that by showing care and taking those commitments to heart that we will dIlaver on those outcomes together. Come what may, and there's a, there's a little phrase that I'll use when I'm talking about the domain of rIlaability, and I think it covers this too, about what you're saying about these different levels of breakdowns is how you break your promise is just as important as how you keep them.

Yeah. And being transparent and human, here's where I am. I am gonna need some assistance. Or we've got a recovery plan. I'm just letting you know I'm keeping you in the loop. Or whatever the situation may be. But those are trust building behaviors as trust building language. Yeah. I, we use the terminology of managing promises and managing promises.

Not saying, here's a guarantee, you don't have to worry. And oh, it's, we're making the best promise we can. We have both taken the responsibility to look and say, is this promise trustworthy? Are we overcommitting of what we need to do to take care of that? And we are staying coordinated. Mm-hmm. To manage is to maintain coordination, to have the story of the future be up to date and share all the way through.

And what that means is anytime the future changes from the point of view of either party, they have a conversation to have with the other party. A question, well, what do we do now? And that's the way we produce, uh, COCOM commitment. Mm-hmm. A good customer makes good performers, a good performer makes good customers.

Mm-hmm. As they're both responsible for the quality of the conversation. And it really, again, just what you said strikes me as a clear demonstration of trustworthiness in the domains of care and sincerity as well as rIlaability. Mm-hmm. I love it. I love it. Bob, I feel like we could continue this conversation for much longer, and I would love to share with our listeners how can they find you?

How can they maybe get in touch with you around the work that you do? What resources do you have? I'm sure many of our listeners will be gobbling up this episode. Beautiful. My email, give it verbally here is: bdunham@generativeleadership.co   Our website is: https://generateleadership.com/

I'm gonna be launching a new website and programs here in the next couple of months called Journey Into Wisdom.

And that's basically still dealing with the world of action as living life with the purpose to live a good life and to create a good life with and for others. And it's dealing with the human dimensions, not. Restricted to the domain of leadership. I have an email there called Bob d@journeyintowisdom.com and, uh, we'll see what the power of conversation allows us to create together.

I love it. I love it. Any closing comments from you, Charles? Wow. This has been great. I have enjoyed listening to this conversation. I haven't participated in a whole lot, but I sure enjoyed listening and being part of it. Bob, could you just repeat the title of the book that you've referenced a couple of times?

The book is The Power of Owning Up by Bob Dunham and Sameer Dua.  

Thank you. That's great. We thank you again so much, Bob. We've so enjoyed this conversation. I know I have about 17 pages of notes here. I'm trying to pay attention and write as I'm, as I'm listening.

Thank you so much again, and I'm sure our listeners will be really excited about hearing about this new website and this program that you have as well. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. On behalf of both Charles and myself, we wanna say a big thank you to our producer and sound editor, Chad Penner, Hillary Ride out of Inside Out branding, who does our promotion, our amazing graphics and marketing press, and our scene music was composed by Jonas Smith.

If you have any questions or comments for us about the podcast, if you have a trust-related situations you'd like us to take up in one of our episodes, we'd love to hear from you 

Take care and keep building trust on purpose.

Until next time.