The PLA Podcast

Ep 1: Leading Through Complexity: Why Dialogue Matters in Medicine and Beyond

• PLA • Episode 1

Share episode

Welcome to the inaugural episode of the Physicians Leadership Academy (PLA) Podcast, brought to you by the Columbus Medical Association. Hosts Dr. Stephanie Costa and Dr. Phil Cass sit down with complexity theorist and dialogue practitioner Chris Corrigan for a rich conversation on why linear thinking falls short when tackling healthcare’s most difficult challenges.
 
From ER staffing issues to physician burnout, Chris explores how complexity theory and participatory dialogue can help leaders navigate uncertainty, foster innovation, and create more life-giving work environments. This episode is a must-listen for physicians seeking to lead with meaning, resilience, and connection—both in the exam room and beyond.
 
 🔗 Learn more at: physiciansleadershipacademy.org

Chris Corrigan lives with his family on Bowen Island, British Columbia, Canada. Find out more about him at www.chriscorrigan.com.



Produced by the Columbus Medical Association

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhysiciansLeadershipAcademyPLA/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/physicians.leadership.academy/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/physicians-leadership-academy/

SPEAKER_01:

Thank you for joining us. Hi, everyone, and welcome to our very first PLA podcast. We developed the PLA podcast to help you stay connected to the teachings and mindset of the Physicians Leadership Academy in a way that was easily accessible to you, whether that's in the car, while exercising, hopefully not doing a few charts. And at the conclusion of listening to our podcast, we welcome any feedback you have, suggestions for guests or topics. And today for our first podcast, we are super excited to be welcoming Chris Corrigan to talk with us. Chris is an experienced podcaster. He's experienced in a lot of things. In fact, as I was reviewing his bio in preparation for today, I thought, gosh, Chris has just got a lot of complexity in himself and the work that he does. But as usual, it's done in a way that is very approachable and understandable. and exciting. So welcome, Chris. Thank you. It's good to be here. Yeah. Phil, you've known Chris for how long?

SPEAKER_02:

You know, we met in the early 2000s. I'm not exactly sure the exact date, but it was the very early 2000s. And we initially met over the art of hosting conversations that matter, that you're all aware of from the fall retreats you've been on. And then Chris got into the complexity theory work, and I was like, oh, wow, this is really important stuff. And when I sat down and started to put together what the design for the PLA was, it was like, if we can get Chris, we got to get Chris to be part of this.

SPEAKER_01:

Look how Chris has impacted all of our graduates. So welcome, Chris.

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah,

SPEAKER_04:

great. Lovely to be here. Hey, can I preempt your questions, Stephanie? Yes. Phil, when you saw, because we were hosting conversations and we were really interested in these methods of participatory leadership, but when you heard I got into the complexity world, why did that excite you?

SPEAKER_02:

I've been part of so many change initiatives in my lifetime and have made oodles, oodles of mistakes. many of them around trying to solve complex problems in linear kinds of ways. When I started to hear what you were doing and started to hear about complexity theory, it was an eye-opener for me about how change really happens. So in some ways, Chris, it was coming off of making mistakes and trying to solve complex problems in linear kinds of ways.

SPEAKER_04:

Yeah, cool. That's good. That's such a nice jumping off point. Hey, Stephan.

SPEAKER_01:

Well, it sure is, because I'm curious, Chris, why you're excited about complexity theory and why it matters to you.

SPEAKER_04:

Well, I think for some of the reasons Phil just articulated, I've made my career largely working in the space of working in human services and in nonprofits, work a little bit with government. And I've worked with some of the really complex issues of our time, which includes things like child welfare, healthcare, where I'm working with you folks, and the space of reconciliation between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities. Just like really tricky stuff, justice, racial justice, all of those areas. And I think like, as you say, Phil, those don't have easy solutions. There's no like linear way forward to all of those. And I think once you start working as a dialogue practitioner, rather than as a facilitator, and I want to, there's a kind of distinction there that's important for me, because getting into dialogue means making meaning together. And when you put a couple of people in a room or in a conversation together, you don't know what's going to happen. Put them in a podcast together. You don't know what's going to happen. Something's going to emerge in the middle of that. And You know, it occurred to me working on the same kinds of issues you were working on, Phil. In fact, it's funny, like actually how many of the same kinds of fields we worked in before we met, that the necessity of the times calls for being able to create new things. And we get kind of bamboozled, I think, and befuddled by... nature of the problems that we're facing because they should have they should have answers they should have root causes they should be understandable and especially when you're working with like really smart people with professionals with folks that are in the business of diagnosing problems and coming up with solutions in a way you think like well social problems should have the same core organizational problems or cultural problems should have the same kind of core mechanic that lets us look at them, analyze them, solve them, pick the good solutions and move on. And we just know that that's not true. We're continually bombarded by these problems. And so getting into being a dialogue practitioner and an art of hosting practitioner, I think I came to realize that we needed to look at problems in different ways. We needed to start thinking about problems in different ways, not just coming up with better solutions for the problems we were facing, And I couldn't find, you know, there was a clue in the way dialogue works and that you put people in a space, you have like a question, but you don't know what's going to emerge there. There's a clue in how that works. But I really wanted to understand why things like open space, why things like, you know, dialogue practice, why they work and why they generate these kinds of outcomes. And so the complexity theory was part of the answer to that, how complex systems work. And that made me passionate because I, it helped me as a dialogue host and as a facilitator and a host in the art of hosting world to make better choices about the way I was working with people. So instead of trying to force outcomes and instead of trying to force solutions from a problem space, I knew that we needed to relax a little bit more, that we needed to explore, that we needed to create conditions that allowed us to try and find new ways forward and do things that hadn't ever been done before. And that's a kind of double-edged sword, but Because it's not always going to work. You're not always going to get the answers you're looking for. But when you're faced with problems that are unpredictable, that are constantly changing, and you need to be adaptable in trying to understand them, dialogue methods are really good ways of doing those things. In fact, it's a really accessible and quick way into that work. And then understanding how those things work I got really excited because I just felt like, okay, there's a reason why we do these things. It's not, you know, people will often complain, oh, it's just talk and it's no action. But in complexity, talk is action because it's a way we make sense of the world and it's a way we choose our paths forward. And so it gave us a really good rationale for doing the work we were doing and also gave us a really good area to grow our own skills, right? And I think, Phil, just the way you described that, like, why you got excited about complexity theory coming into the art of hosting. It just gives us a developmental pathway for ourselves as practitioners to know that we need to understand why things work in a certain way, why things are a certain way, and why we make the choices we make in terms of leading and hosting to be able to address the complexity of the problems that we're soaking in.

SPEAKER_02:

I think also that from a very practical standpoint, I know I have spent, as a CEO of different organizations, A lot of money trying to solve complex problems using linear methods that don't work and dialogue and complexity do offer that opportunity to be efficient with our resources to solve problems. And so for all the reasons that Chris has said, as well as from the standpoint of efficient organizational change, I think it's an essential thing to understand complexity.

SPEAKER_04:

It's kind of ironic, isn't it? Because it's like that efficiency mindset drives so much of the, okay, we need to go right now, but actually it's the simplicity of sitting with one another and saying, what's happening here? You know, we always talk about the framework that kind of Glenda Youyang made quite popular in complexity theory, which comes from an educational theorist called Terry Borton. And it's very simple. The framework for all the kinds of conversations we're in follows these three phases of what, so what, now what? Like what's happening? How much of it can we understand? We can't understand all of it, so how much can we understand? What does that mean in terms of where we are and where we wanna go? And so now what should we do? What should we try to see what comes up? That's actually quite efficient Doesn't guarantee you an outcome, but a linear process doesn't guarantee you an income. You know, hiring a massive... But it does guarantee you movement. Yeah, movement, yeah, from where you are. And if you're stuck, movement is a bomb.

SPEAKER_01:

Yep. Chris, not all of our alumni have had the good fortune of have you teach a session with them. I know I was one of the earliest graduates and didn't have that opportunity. For the alumni that are listening who haven't attended one of your sessions on complexity, what are a couple of essential things about complexity theory that would be good for them to know?

SPEAKER_04:

Yeah, it's a good question. And I think this is the reason why in the complexity component in the PLA, we start by looking at the Kenevan framework, which is a framework that David Snowden created and has been tinkered with and improved over all the years. And the Kenevan framework, the original paper, actually, that he published that in 2003 in the Harvard Business Review, was called A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. And the basic value of it is it describes the nature of different types of problems. And he uses the terms clear, complicated, complex, and chaotic. And the idea here is that knowing the kind of problems that you're facing, the kind of problem space that you're in, helps you to make decisions about the interventions to make in the system. And you want to align the nature of your interventions with the nature of the problem. And so the major distinction between these two things is a little bit what we've been talking about. This idea that there are kinds of problems that are very linear, very predictive. We can understand the whole system. We can not only take an educated guess, but we can even model the way an intervention will go and be pretty certain that if we just follow the path, this critical path, that we're going to get the outcomes we desire. That's true for many, many technical kinds of problems. It used to be called, was it Heifetz that talked about the technical and adaptive leadership, you know, 20 years ago, 20, 25 years ago? Yes.

SPEAKER_02:

It's

SPEAKER_04:

very much in line of that. Those are the kinds of technical problems where there is a knowable solution. We may need some experts who can come in and sort it out for us. But if we're building a new hospital or we're creating new tools for an operating theater, those are technical solutions with solvable endpoints. And we're very highly privileged that type of view, the idea that if we just understand the system, the results will be apparent to us, and then we can take an action along almost a back-casted, here's our final resting place where we want to be at the end of the day, and then we just work backwards and then we just follow those steps. But complexity is a whole different beast because it's fundamentally unknowable. In fact, even the act of studying a complex system will change it. It's massively interdependent. All of the agents in a system, whether those are people, resources, institutions, they're all shifting and moving in relationship to one another at the same time. So you can't just study it and get the answers. And the major characteristic of complex systems is they produce emergent behaviors. And emergent behaviors are behaviors that, you know, I mean, one easy way that I talk about this in terms of the dialogue world is an emergent solution is a solution that everybody leaves the room with, but nobody brought into the room with them. So we can produce new knowledge together when we're making meaning together. But the kinds of complex problems that we're facing, these are problems that are not in the strategic plan. Like I don't know a single organization, for example, that says build a toxic work culture in their five-year strategic plan. And yet it's almost like most organizations get that as an outcome most of the time. So whatever we're doing, right, we're not planning for it, but it appears. And work culture is a really good example, whether it's culture of overwork, or exploitative workplaces, toxic work culture, toxic leadership. These are all emergent properties. We don't want to be that way. We don't design systems in order to have those outcomes. But there's something about the design of the systems, the communities and the context that we're working in that produce those. And so fundamentally, a complex system is one in which it's unknowable. We can't fully study it. We can learn about it. We can't make predictable interventions, but we can take some guesses. We can try some things and see what happens. And so in that sense, working in complexity means getting as many people into a room or into a process as possible. making sense of it together so not like compiling work and then giving it to one or two consultants who then give you the recommended course of action actually helps if a community makes sense of its own work and then trying things lots of things to see what happens what fails what's working what gives us in other words dave snowden likes to use this term we progress in complex systems by generating more stories like this and fewer stories like that and it's really actually quite it's quite that simple but if we're wedded to the idea that a really good strategic plan and a really good solid set of steps forward gets us to our answers, we're very often caught unawares, we're caught by surprise about the things that emerge around us about the way things change because any intervention into a system will change it, which is the good news and the bad news about working in complexity. And so having a good set of tools around that is really important because If we continue to use the tools that work really well in the linear world, in the complex world, what happens is we narrow our view a lot and we can get very much taken by surprise. And an example I would use in the healthcare world is, as a doctor, you would never see a patient walking into your office with a runny nose and a cough and then prescribe them a course of action just based on that. Well, the last patient that walked in here with a runny nose and a cough had a cold. And so go home and take some lemon and there's nothing I can do for you. You've got a virus, you'll be fine. But I mean, a cough and a runny nose can be any number of underlying diseases or illnesses. And so you want to sit and work with that person like, where have you been? What have you been doing? What else is happening? Let me take some tests. Let me get some data. Are you sleeping well? Are you not sleeping well? Are you hot? Are you cold? So all of this information helps you then to make a decision. And I mean, this seems fairly obvious. But in a lot of our organizational life, we want to just rely on best practices of things that we've done in the past because, A, that seems more efficient. It might not be effective at all. Not everybody who walks into your office with a runny nose and a cough has a cold, right?

SPEAKER_01:

And that's the art of medicine. You have that discernment and can individualize your assessment and care for each patient and individualize you're developing relationship with them in the process. And so it sounds like complexity theory. When you think about complexity in medicine, you all of a sudden start thinking about the systems and the problems in medicine. But no, there are parallels even in an individual exam room.

SPEAKER_02:

The industrial model has pervaded our thinking and our behavior all the way from hierarchical structures how we think problems get solved, how we approach almost everything. The industrial model has really impacted all of our thinking in ways that has been problematic in a lot of ways, yeah.

SPEAKER_04:

It strikes me that, I'm not a healthcare practitioner, but I've worked a lot in the field, but the patient-physician relationship, I can speak to it as an expert as a patient. The patient-physician relationship is one in which is no matter how much the industrial forces of medicine and healthcare are aligned around providing that doctor with resources and providing that patient with coverage and insurance and all that kind of stuff. That fundamental relationship, that's about my wellness, that's about my wellbeing. That's about as I age and as I grow, my own life is gonna change, my circumstances are gonna change. And the relationship I have with my doctor is not just about getting numbers, But it's really about wanting to be in a conversation about what makes sense for me to try as I grow older, as I get different injuries, as I come down with different illnesses, and follow me as I develop as a person, right? And our relationship will develop as well. So even though we align all of these resources in this way, Phil, right? Like the focus for so much in the healthcare world and in medicine can be on something as simple as making money or you know, delivering a particular outcome, what fundamentally comes down to like, how is this human being being and how are we supporting them in their own life and in their own, you know, so they can be healthy because health is an emergent outcome of the interactions between myself and my entire environment. The things I eat, the things that I do, the things I think about, the people that are in my life or not in my life. My health is an emergent outcome of that. It's not simply, well, here's your blood pressure, here's your heart rate. You look pretty good, away you go. I've had great blood pressure, great heart rate, great weight, and been depressed. The numbers don't always tell you everything.

SPEAKER_01:

Yes, I remember in March when you were at the CMA speaking to this year's current PLA class, you were talking about when tackling complex problems, creating an environment where it is safe to fail. This isn't always possible in medicine because the stakes are quite high, sometimes life or death. So can you tell us why? what might be possible in the arena of medicine when we try to address complex problems?

SPEAKER_04:

Yeah, I think this is true of any kind of innovation. Safe to fail, by definition, means you're doing things where the stakes are lower. So you're just lowering the stakes. So it means taking much smaller bets and guesses on things. So you're not putting people's lives at risk. And in fact, the more little actions you can take to address things, for example, When you have, I'm gonna make up an example here. Again, I apologize. I've never worked as a physician or worked in an ER room, but let's take this for an example. You notice over a period of weeks and months that your staffing in an ER is getting tougher and tougher to get people to come in. This is a natural cycle, right, in ERs. I don't know that ERs are ever overstaffed and well-resourced. I've never heard a story

SPEAKER_01:

of one that is. I haven't either.

SPEAKER_04:

Right? But the nature of the beast is that it's an emergent problem. So if you walk into an ER, you know, in June on a nice warm June day, you're going to see a whole different situation than if you walk in there on a cold, wet December afternoon. Very different. So the changes even over time, even over seasons. If there's a pandemic going on, maybe a bunch of your staff are laid up with COVID or something and they can't come in. So you've got short staffing short of this. So this is an example of a complex problem. I think that is common in many healthcare and human services settings. So the question really is, well, what is happening out there? What do we know about the system, about why we're unable to deal with things? And it could be, yes, resourcing like Give us some more money, give us some more bodies. That could help. But are there smaller things that we can do? Are there ways that we could change the culture of our place so that people are, for example, more willing to be on call more often? you know, if that's just one aspect of the problem. And so we don't know, like, so we got to try some things out and we've got to try things out in June. We got to try things out in December because there's going to be different situations. The feel of the place is going to be different. The nature of the problems we're facing is going to be different. And so in order to explore in complexity, you just try some things like at a small level, just see if we can shift some stuff. It could be incentivizing. It could be a different kind of, um, a different kind of lineup of work. We could be reconvening teams, reconfiguring teams, just seeing how things work. So it's really this experimental process that works in complexity. And I think the reason why we don't try those is because of what you're talking about, Stephanie. We're afraid people will die. We're afraid that if we experiment with things we don't know how to do, that it's too risky. And, you know, people working in human services are naturally and thankfully risk averse. We don't want to be putting patients and clients into risky situations. We don't want to be compromising their health. There's a good ethical reason for doing that. But on the other hand, we do have to try new things. And so it's a question of that finding the right the right zone for experimenting in different ways. Now, I know because I was talking with several years ago with a brain surgeon, the wife of a brain surgeon. And this brain surgeon, he does a lot of really, he's really good. And so he does a lot of really sort of first or second time procedures. Like he's one of those people, works at the Children's Hospital of Vancouver. And his wife was at an Art of Hosting and she was learning conversation and all of this and all the stuff we teach in the Art of Hosting. And she went home at night and her husband said, oh, you're just learning how to talk like, Why don't you do something real like brain surgery on a kid? How's talking going to help you? And she came back and she was feeling a little bit like, yeah, I mean, he does important work. Where does talking conversation fit into that? And I said, well, the next time he does a novel procedure, ask him how much time he spent talking about it and how much time he spent doing it. And the fact was that she came back and she said, yeah, he just performed a procedure, but it took him about six months of being in conversation with his colleagues around the world, around different approaches that they could use. And they were modeling it and they were experimenting with different pieces of software to see how this might work. And like, that's safe to fail, right? And that's conversation. And now, because you're going to work on an actual brain of an actual child, you know, you have to do all of this work beforehand to try and and see what your best course of action might be. And then you're gonna get in there and do it. But it's not that you just have a kid, you know exactly what needs to happen in the brain. And yeah, maybe the procedure is done once or twice before, but I guess I'll just give it my best shot, like that's risky. So in complexity, it's the same with all complex things.

SPEAKER_01:

Chris, in that recent PLA session, you also talked about how our work could not only be strategic, but also life-giving. And this really resonated with me as a physician who has watched physicians become more siloed and isolated. And as we talked about that doctor-patient relationship, it just seems to become eroded because of this conflict between having that interaction as humans and the trying to be more and more efficient because of time pressures. So then you look at the container in which we work, whether that's a hospital or a busy office practice or telemedicine or wherever physicians are working. Can you describe ways that our work could feel more life-giving to us and how we might influence that container in which we work for the better so that the work is more life-giving?

SPEAKER_04:

Well, I think... human beings are like, we just seek and require meaningfulness in our life. I don't think anybody gets into medicine because I don't know, I got nothing else to do. Maybe I'll just become a doctor. I think you do it. There's already a level of meaningfulness in it. It's a deeply meaningful profession, right? And I mean, it's inherently life-giving. I mean, that's what it is, really. And then the systems that you're talking, we were talking about earlier, Phil, like the industrialization system. Industrialization, by definition, kind of squeezes the life out of all of its components. And it works great if all you've got are machines. You want to make them work as efficiently and quickly as possible. And machines don't make meaning and machines don't care. You can work them until their limitations are exceeded and then build new and faster ones. But people aren't like that. People require meaningfulness in order to continue in their work. So the first thing for me is the relationship between myself and my work, my relationship to myself and my relationship to others. That gives me life. It makes me... makes me want to continue doing this work. I heard this term, life-giving contexts, used by Jennifer Garvey Berger, who is a complexity theorist and really great person. One of her books I recommend to people all the time is called Simple Habits for Complex Times. And I think physicians will relate to the stories that are in there and some of the strategies. But she kind of used it offhandedly in a comment in a webinar. And I've been I've been playing with this idea that this is really what our work is, is to create these life-giving contexts for myself and my patient in that little space, that little container where we're working together and we're trying to deal with a good life or a good death if you're working in that space as well. What that would mean that every act and every moment of your life would be meaningful. And trying to create those in a system where it's pushing efficiency down your throat It's sort of interesting. It's not your fault. It's not that you have to be better at managing your time. You have to be better at like compartmentalizing, you have to be more mindful even, you know, because we teach mindfulness in PLA. If you're just more mindful, if you're just more attentive, like, no, it's actually, you're working in a system that's essentially trying to kill you because it's more efficient to have robots do this work, to be honest. And if we could just get all the doctors out of it and even all the patients out of it, we could make a killing in the system, you know? I mean, that's the logical conclusion. So it's about like, what are the things we can do? And I feel... Like, even what's offered in the PLA around, what if we just built a community of practice? You could go for coffee with someone. Like, those small things. In British Columbia, the Division of Family Practice were looking at different ways to, you know, just address this issue around physician culture. And one of the things that was starting to happen was that the physicians' lounges were being closed in hospitals. I think that's what they call them, right? The physician's lounges.

SPEAKER_01:

I don't know many docs who lounge in them actually, but yes, that is what they call them.

SPEAKER_04:

Right. Yeah. They call them the lounge, but they're actually, they're actually super important containers and super important places in a hospital. And hospitals were like, oh, we need those for other things. We're short on space. And it's like, yeah, but if the doctors can't find a place where they can sit and talk to one another and where they can be vulnerable with one another, where they can open up without anybody criticizing or judging them. You know, this is an exclusive place for physicians to be together in a way that's safe for them, right? So that they can cry, so they could ask advice, so that they could maybe come up with some different ideas, so they could scheme together about how to leave and start a practice, you know, because that happens too. Like all of those different things, those are the little things that actually create life-giving context and more meaning. And that's a perfect example of working in complexity. Instead of going to the hospital and saying, build more of these places, it's just like, how can we use the spaces we have? How can we create community? How can we create relationship? How can we stay in the game by making sure that the work we're doing continues to feed us as well?

SPEAKER_02:

Steph, one of your and my great hopes is that as physicians move out of the PLA and move into leadership, well, some leadership roles, but they're always in leadership, that they have learned that one of the best questions they can ask a colleague is, what does it mean to you? What does that issue really mean to you? Asking that question of meaning before the critique or criticism or other kinds of things happen is what we're trying to build in the kind of leaders that we're trying to to build through the PLA. And you and I talk about this all the time. What meaning do you give to that event? It's really important for leaders to be able to ask.

SPEAKER_04:

I think so too, Phil. And I also think that, I mean, I think increasingly convince the older I get that meaning breeds resilience, meaning making breeds resilience. And I think about Viktor Frankl and I think about the School of Therapy. He started the Logotherapy, which is, you know, basically... this psychological approach to bringing more meaning into your life, because that's where the resilience comes from. We go back to reading his famous book, Answers for Meaning, which documents his journey in the death camps in Nazi Germany and who lived and who suffered and who withered, not just at the hands of really brutal oppressors, but who's whose approach to life was sustaining even under those circumstances. It was those that were making meaning at even the smallest levels. So there's like a real connection there between resilience and meaning-making, which I think is critical. In healthcare, it's critical in the physician's world to be a resilient human being. And meaning is, by its very nature, emergent. It's not something you can put in a strategic plan. I'm going to have more meaning, like eight more units of meaning in my life this month. That's my target, right, for this year. It's actually something you've got to continue to experiment with and absolutely setting people up to be in a community of like-minded, of like-hearted individuals that have trained a little together, that have some shared story, a little shared history, but a diversity of experience. I mean, what a gift.

SPEAKER_01:

So important to continually connect with why we went into medicine and to acknowledge the impact we're making. It's so easy when you get really good at something that you kind of dismiss when people say, thank you so much. You made such a difference in my life. And that's what we do. So we don't really... you know, acknowledge it. We dismiss it. And yeah, just to, to, cultivate that resilience. So important to let ourselves go to that space and to be that space for other physicians. So always invigorating to talk with you, Chris. And I know people will be eager to learn more from you. I know your website has an abundance of resources, insights, and musings, and that can be found at chriscorrigan.com. Is that right? Yep,

SPEAKER_04:

that's right. And there's a contact form there. And as anybody who's been in the PLA knows. You can email me anytime. Not too many do, but it's always

SPEAKER_01:

good. Okay, the invitation's out there. Phil, any last words?

SPEAKER_02:

Just simply how grateful I am, Chris, for you being willing to do this on a subject that is dear to me, that I think is one of the more important things we do at the PLA.

SPEAKER_04:

Well, I've so valued our friendship and our colleagueship over the years working on this stuff too. Helps me to learn. It's such a great opportunity to bring new things to folks that are making a difference in the world. And yeah, it just builds our friendship. It's so good to get to see you every year. All of you.

SPEAKER_01:

Chris, thanks so much. And we really look forward to being with you again.

SPEAKER_00:

Thank you for tuning in to the Physicians Leadership Academy podcast. This podcast is produced by the Columbus Medical Association. We hope today's conversation has inspired and equipped you on your journey as a physician leader. For more resources and to learn about applying to the PLA, visit us at physiciansleadershipacademy.org.