How to build a less hierarchical org chart

Description: The nonprofit sector is drawn to the idea of flat org charts — but most organizations don't have great examples of what that actually looks like in practice. Why do we cling to hierarchy even when it conflicts with the values we're trying to model? And what does it actually take — not just philosophically, but day-to-day — to share power inside an organization?

Hillary explores the conditions that make less hierarchical structures work, and the internal work that has to happen before you ever touch the org chart. You'll also hear from three co-executive directors at All Souls Church in Boulder, Colorado, who stopped theorizing about shared leadership and started living it.

You'll hear about:

• Teal organizations, holacracy, and mutual aid — and what each model actually looks like in practice
• The three things less hierarchical org charts require before they can work
• Why collective liberation work has to come before you flatten the org chart

Mentioned:

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Nelson Parker.

Mont, S. (2017, January 9). Autopsy of a failed holacracy: Lessons in justice, equity, and self-management. Nonprofit Quarterly.

Valve Handbook

Guests: 

Leah Cousin. Leah joined the staff in 2016 after being part of the community at All Souls for nearly a decade. She enjoys reigning in the vision filled minds of those around her in the office and producing action plans to achieve those visions. She is passionate about all things vegetables: farming, cooking, and sitting around a table with friends and family to enjoy a meal. 

Rachel Zylstra. Rachel is a lifelong learner, adventurer, friend, partner, mother, teacher, and 7 on the Enneagram. She’s been on staff at All Souls Church of Boulder since 2014. She is passionate about discovering and exploring faith through the lens of wonder, healing, and finding the childlikeness in all of us. 

Will Forsythe. Will was born and raised in Colorado, and is now serving as the Pastor of All Souls Church of Boulder.  Will graduated from Western Theological Seminary in Holland, MI.  He has worked in youth ministry, missions, and church planting, but is excited to now call Boulder home. In his free time, Will can be found fishing, reading Russian literature, biking, or drinking a good IPA.

Transcript

My name is Hillary Frances, and one of the things I've been thinking about is the conditions that make a flat org chart work in an organization and the conditions that make a flat org chart helpful. The nonprofit sector is interested in experimenting with less hierarchy, but doesn't have great examples of success. You would think social sector organizations would be great at sharing power more driven by the mission of the organization than their role in it. You would think they would outperform for-profits who are experimenting with flat org charts at a faster rate. But we don't have great examples of this being the case. Hierarchy is comforting. It makes us feel safe. Someone we, hopefully, trust is guiding things. We don't have to worry about decisions that someone else is in charge of making yet. Hierarchy is expensive. We maintain a hierarchy by building a bigger and bigger organization to support the pyramid. You promote people to retain people. When people are promoted, they need other people to delegate things to. So you hire new people and the pyramid expands. And we are living in a time when power dynamics are more exposed than ever before. So while we feel comfortable with hierarchy, we are very, very critical of power structures. 

You're listening to tailwinds ideas, fueling nonprofit innovators and social entrepreneurs. Tailwinds is a project that brings momentum to the leaders tackling the world's most impossible problems. Today's episode has two parts. First, I wanna give you a few ways to experiment with less hierarchy. I am going to argue that we need to work on our organization's ability to share power in small ways before we can benefit from a different org chart. And then part two, you're going to hear from a team in Boulder, Colorado who are sharing an executive director role. Three ways they'll tell you how they're making it work. We haven't seen much of this in the wild, so this will help you picture the day-to-day of a team that shares leadership. 

So part one, I wanna start with some definitions of a few of the terms I've been hearing related to flat org charts. The first term is teal organizations. Teal organizations replace hierarchies with self-management. The color teal represents an evolution from red, which was rigid hierarchy to green, which was pluralism to a hybrid. That operates as a living self-organizing system where decisions are distributed among peer-to-peer teams. Authority is fluid and work is guided by shared values. This term was developed by Frederick Laloux, who is famous for his book, Reinventing Organizations. If you wanna imagine this, it would look like a program manager sharing that she's overwhelmed by demand for a new workshop. Instead of her supervisor deciding what to do, three colleagues lean in and ask, what support do you need? What would success look like? Someone volunteers to temporarily absorb her administrative tasks. Another offers to shadow the workshop and help map a more sustainable workflow. A third says, should we shift our quarterly priorities to emphasize this workshop? Feels like the community is telling us something. No one asks for permission to change the plan for the workshop. No one sends the idea up. The group collectively checks the organization's purpose and values, which are written on the wall and reinforced constantly and decides that shifting other priorities to support this workshop aligns. If a conflict arises between two staff members in a teal organization, instead of escalating it to a boss, they use the organization's peer mediation protocol. A colleague trained in conflict navigation joins them. 

The part that feels hard to me about this isn't the ambiguity around decision making, it's the shared responsibility for success and failure, as in we all have to think about all angles for all decisions all the time. So that's teal organizations. We also have the term holacracy, which is a type of teal structure that organizes work into interconnected teams called circles. Empowering them to make decisions within clearly defined responsibilities. This would look very similar to what we just heard about Teal, but more team-based. Each person holds a role, not a job title, like outreach, lead, data steward, partnership, nurture. They hold these roles in a variety of work groups that they're a part of, and those roles change depending on the work group. Meetings have a strict format. They might start with check-ins, then move into tensions, concrete gaps between what is and what could be a staff member says As the data steward, I'm noticing we don't have a clean way to track follow up. After events, the circle facilitator asks clarifying questions. The partnership nurturer suggests she could ask their partners for help with data follow up. So, while I've never worked in this structure, it seems like the roles ensure that your brain power can stay focused on the wellbeing of your circles rather than the wellbeing of the entire organization. So I like this one better. 

The last relevant term to define is mutual aid groups. We need to be paying attention to the rise of mutual aid groups these days because they often emerge in context of social conflict. We're seeing them vividly in Minneapolis if you're listening to this in 2026. They are non-hierarchical, totally non-hierarchical, run by volunteers, operate off social media and Google spreadsheets and are full of people united by the desire to get to the root of the problem. So in Minneapolis we have several examples of mutual aid organizations. They often use the phrase solidarity, not charity is the only way to collective liberation. This type of work began in COID and the murder of George Floyd and continues to today with a surge of neighborhood groups who offer things like resource sharing, street medic support, food distribution, community defense. I even read about a yurt building group that is building yurt like structures for the unhoused and can build one with a stove inside for $400 and when they raise money, it's to pay for the supplies and the firewood. When you peruse the websites for these organizations, if they have a website, sometimes it's just social media. There's often an About us page that does not have staff and boards like we're familiar with seeing on these pages. Just a description of the cause the volunteers are committed to. So those are our terms. Teal, holacracy, and Mutual Aid. Now in thinking about how and if we transition to experimenting with these things, here's what I've landed on. Less hierarchical org charts require three things. The first, a motivation deeper than trends or efficiency. Two, organization wide work on collective liberation, anti-oppression, anti-racism. And three practice with self-managed teams. 

Let's talk about the motivation first. The entertainment company Valve has a flat organizational structure because it quote removes every organizational barrier between your work and the customer. Enjoying that work end quote. For them, they're motivated by the opportunity to optimize innovation and efficiency. The shoe company, Zappos might have said that their motivation for flattening their org chart in 2015 was to eliminate stagnation that comes from the bureaucracy of large companies to accelerate scale. For others, the motivation might be more philosophical. It's just right to share power. In fact, that's the reasoning we're going to hear from the Boulder team. They couldn't justify doing the type of social justice work they do when their own internal work did not mirror the world they were trying to build externally. And that might be my favorite motivation. The motivation to reduce hierarchy because you wanna put your money where your mouth is. You wanna create an organizational culture that mirrors equity and shared power. If our motivation is to function like the startups we're reading about in our business magazines or following a trend, and that's a moving target. So if less hierarchical org charts require a lasting motivation. 

The second thing they need is for us to intentionally work on collective liberation. Collective liberation is the work of noticing injustice, grieving it collectively, healing from it, and then trying again. Collective liberation is more about an anticipated good thing, like a culture where we are free of oppression. Rather than focusing on ridding ourselves of bad behavior, imagine a team of mostly similar white people and a few bipoc people removing their hierarchy without working on implicit bias, prejudices, historical trauma, microaggressions. Imagine being on a team with no leader when you don't feel confident sharing your opinion, because you don't match the characteristics of the majority of the people at this organization. So your organization should be moderately skilled with power sharing before you remove your hierarchy. Everyone at the organization, everyone, everyone should be able to talk about the race, class, gender ability, generational seniority, dynamics that have existed in the past, but that we have overcome. You should be able to interview everyone about this and feel good about the answers. So let me share some sample diagnostic questions. When these questions are easy for all staff to answer and you feel pretty good about their answers, you will know that you are ready to remove some hierarchy. Question one. Can you describe a time when race, class, gender, or any other identity dynamic shaped how decisions were made on our team and how we addressed it? Two, do you feel confident bringing up identity based harm or inequity? Three. Whose voices tend to dominate in group discussions and how do we redistribute airtime or authority when that happens? Four. What patterns of harm or exclusion have existed in our organization in the past? How do you see us actively working to prevent them? Now? Five. How do you personally practice sharing power on your team? What does that look like? Hour to hour, not just philosophically. Six. When do you feel most like an insider here? When do you feel most like an outsider? Seven. Have you ever realized you were unintentionally taking up too much space? What did you do next? If staff are stumped or taken off guard or nervous to answer these questions, you still have work to do on collective liberation before removing hierarchy so. 

So far we have that less hierarchy requires a lasting motivation, an organizational culture that's done. Its homework on collective liberation. And now the third thing, some initial practice. With self-managed teams, initial practice with self-managed teams is like doing a pilot study of less hierarchy for your organization. The idea is that you would choose an existing team that doesn't have a manager. It could be one where your manager position is vacant, or it could be a group of people who come across teams to form a task force. Have this group practice decision making by advising each other on their areas of expertise. This is called focal point specialists, and they offer insight that the group will need to make a decision. Then have the group take note of a few things when the desire for hierarchy arises and the comfort level they have without leadership, where did Identity Dynamics show up? What skills do we need to build before attempting more self-management? What part of this experiment should we expand to the organization or should we pause? Another experiment similar to this is creating co-executive directors. This is an experiment in less hierarchy because it removes authority from a single person and shares it between two leaders. 

My friends in Boulder did this. They put three out of three staff members in an ED position. So for them, this wasn't an experiment. It was a full plunge into a flat org chart. I'm gonna play pieces of my conversation with these three co-eds. They're working at All Souls Church in Boulder, Colorado. All Souls describes itself as a church that celebrates complexity and they're on the progressive end of the Protestant spectrum. And the church community skews toward younger families or families with teens. Most of the people who attend this church are in some form of recovery from religious trauma. And all of this is important because it reveals the unique challenges of leading this organization. The people drawn to this church are not interested in being challenged or making commitments for the most part. They're interested in a community of like-minded people who are available when they need each other. And these are the people who are the primary source of revenue for the organization. I came on the scene in 2023 to help with a strategic plan. Something you'll notice when you hear them talk is that their description of co-ed ship sounds a lot like three people working on a team. And for them it is because it's a small organization. Not a lot of direct reports, no project based teams. But this is still a great case study because you'll hear them describe their motivation for this decision. They're trying to model the world they're working to create, and they've done a lot of homework on collective liberation. These leaders are also friends of mine, which makes this conversation even more fun. You're hearing from Will Forsythe, Rachel Zylstra, and Leah Cousin.

Okay. So I remember when we were working on your strategic plan and we got to the part about infrastructure, which often is about the org chart of the organization. And when you first presented the idea that you wanted to share leadership, I remember being very skeptical. I hadn't seen this work before and I was in favor of someone taking on an even stronger leadership role because at the time I thought all souls needed an executive director to steer and then a pastor to pastor, and then an administrator to administrate. But through our conversations, I did change my mind and was then all in on the idea of the three of you sharing leadership equally. Which was not a popular decision for some of your board members, and I'm wondering if you remember back at that time, what was your motivation for sharing leadership?

Leah: 17:04
What I things revolving around a lot was the three of us were very invested. And also at this point, sharing these leadership decisions equally. Anyways, but not kind of being maybe recognized is the wrong word, but not being, recognized for, for that leadership capacity. All three of us. Um, so we felt it was important that since we were all making those leadership decisions equally, that we would be, both recognized for that and also, compensated equally as well.

Yeah, I think, that names a lot of it really well, And as lead pastor, big part for me, it just wasn't working. Like for several reasons, it wasn't working. 'Cause I was lonely. This idea of just kind of cultural pressure of like, go up the mountain, get a vision for the community and come down and go up and down and up and down. And, I don't know if that was blatantly said, but it just was. That's how I'd been trained. That's how I'd been taught to do it.

Yeah, it was really one difficult to convey this to. A system that's been out there for so long, a religious system of hierarchy. I think we all work really well together and have known each other for a long time. But when we actually had to write it down on paper, that was, that felt hard, to say like, who does what? And I remember Hillary working with you and you saying, okay, all of you need all these executive director, lists on your job description. And then us bringing that to, to our board, they were

that on there, plus you have your individual of expertise and jobs that you do. So, um, that was really interesting. I think. I would dare to voice from all of us, but especially Leah and I like, it takes constant advocacy to, to kind of prove that the non-hierarchical system is working and it's possible to the outside community.

So you said that you all were already filling in. Without being recognized for it. You all were doing that work of executive director, meaning fundraising and creating the strategy and liaisoning to the elders.

I was gonna ask Leah and Rachel, what part of them wanted more voice in the decision making. It felt like there'd be times where it's like, Hey, this affects you, you're part of it. And also you can't go to this meeting or you're, you know, that like there was a, there was a boundary there that just didn't make sense. And I, I got sense from the two of you. It's like, we want more responsibility. We want to be part of these big decisions.

I think when I think about it, like Leah was saying, behind the scenes, we were, all three of us were communicating and, making these decisions. But then I remember having a moment of like, Hey, I, I feel like I'm a part of this, but I really wanna be all in and I'm not sure, my job title on paper. Sure. The three of us understood how we work together, but it did not make sense. I remember going to my first elder meeting. I don't know, I had never been in an elder meeting. I had never been invited to an elder meeting. And so things on paper didn't match what, who we were and, and how we worked together. Um, think, was a big part of it.

what was your title before Rachel?

I was a children's ministry director.

Yeah. And Leah, what was yours?

Director of administration.

Yeah. Okay. Yep. So big change and it, it felt like it was time to give you the title and recognize the duties in a new job description.

Also I, want to note that this was not our idea. This was definitely your idea. Like, and I'm not saying that to be like, oh gosh, we didn't think of that. That this actual concept of co-executive director was definitely came from you and, and it was like this huge light bulb moment. And I remember just being like, oh my gosh. Totally. You know? That makes perfect sense, to clarify things for us. 'cause that, I mean, in this whole process, that's what we were seeking was clarity. And that, that to me was a memorable moment where I was just like, oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Yeah. Did we make the right decision? Is the three-way co-executive leadership working? It's been how many years later? Two years.

Yeah, I think so. Did we make the right decision? We use the Cohen a lot of like, good or bad, hard to say but one of the, the most important things I think that happened is that we, we just made a decision, like I think that was the we made a clear decision that was mapped out, that was on paper that had job descriptions to it. That everyone looked around the room and said, yes, yes, yes. And then we've just been working the decision. I think what I've learned along the way a lot from these two is make a decision, like have input, make a decision, and then work it. Like you gotta, you gotta like, put in the work instead of make a decision. Wonder if that's right or wrong. Change, make a, you know, and, and just keep shifting. Um, I think being able to like, commit to some of the decisions has just the work behind it has made it work. Relationally, this is the happiest I've ever been in work. This is the most team aspect I've ever felt in work. This is the least lonely I've ever felt in work. So all of that feels, all of that feels right. And it's, it's still hard. work is still hard.

I think we were all itching for it and we believed that it was possible even before there were words to put to it. I just have an image of us, like on a Tuesday morning up in our and it just, it just like feels right I think within our context with the three of us, it, it's starting to feel and has felt quite organic, but as soon as we walk out of that and we're side by side with other church staff or something like that from other places, then all of a sudden it looks like, what, what are you doing?

Usually two concerns are, is that less efficient? Like, are you less efficient in your decision making, in your timeframe? And then like, if a really hard decision comes, like where does the buck stop? I think they're great questions to ask. in my opinion, it feels more efficient. It's more we have to communicate more, potentially have to go to, and we're working on this, go to more meetings like where all three of us are there, but we're finding ways in which different representatives can go to things and then communicate back um, but the efficiency comes in, when we make a decision, it's really solid. Like the three of us are all, in. We've, we've kind of made that together. And then, I don't know, I just don't believe in the buck stops here. I believe in the idea of someone needs to take responsibility for a decision that's made. I just think it's okay if three people take responsibility if they do it. It, and I take responsibility for the decisions that we make together, even if it's not the one that's like, oh, that's exactly how I would do it. But when making the

I take responsibility for being in that room for that conversation, for not saying my point of view, when if I had something really strong, and, and I just, then I feel stronger about the decisions that, that were made together, as a group.

Could you all paint a picture of a decision that wasn't easy, and how you walked through it how long it took to deliberate? Did you go around in circles and share your thoughts? Did you, use a whiteboard? Did you do it over email? And was there a particular part of it that normally someone who was in charge would choose?

Yeah, I would think, you know, before I would've felt, okay, we gotta get a sermon series for the next six months. What is that series gonna be? What could it be? What, what do we want to talk about as a community? All of that kind of thing. I would've felt responsible in the past to have that fully developed and bring that in. Say, here's what we're. Now I feel like, okay, I feel 80% responsible, and I'm gonna bring in 80% into this room. I'm gonna do pre-work. I'm gonna lay out, here are two, three ideas that I'm working with. And I'm gonna present that to this team because I want, what am I asking for? I want feedback. I want understanding of the context. How does this land for you? And what also I love is I know I'm gonna show up to that meeting and Rachel and Leo are gonna say, you know what? I've been thinking about this a little bit as well, and here was an idea that I had. And it's like, oh my gosh, I wouldn't have even thought it, you know? And so taking in that, at the end of the day, every decision has, if we don't make it as a group, it has a, the decision is, okay, whose decision is this gonna be leaving this room?

That's such a good example. So the sermon series makes sense that that would be something will would've decided in the past. So Rachel and Leah, do you have input on the sermon series now

I was just thinking back to kind of when our roles were very, very separate. So, you know, will, will holds the sermon series and, and basically everything that happens inside of a Sunday worship service. I hold, I held, you know, a kid's calendar, what families did very separate and that, and Leah came with the details that happened behind the scenes that we don't always know about now. Now I feel like I can't wait to hear Will's ideas. I come with own then we have this opportunity to. Kind of mesh it all together I feel much more invested,

What's the difference between the group project mentality and how you all are working? I am starting to think of this as everything you do is a group project, which. Kind of has negative connotations, like how tedious are group projects. Does it feel like everything you do is a group project in that old way or in a different way?

I think I'm curious what's the difference between a group project, What's the difference between that and i'll just use a close analogy. Like a awesome basketball team. Like, they're And the difference is the goal is clear and the ownership is all shared. For me, group projects was like, I always felt like I was the dumbest person in the room. So who can I be in a group with that's smarter and is gonna do all the work? is what the fear is. And that's in some ways probably what we were functioning with before is, that type of but then being able to say, our pay is equal, our benefits are equal, our ownership is equal, all of that, and we have a common goal together and we're different.

I think of a group project, I, I literally do get some anxiety because I don't trust that everyone is gonna do their part and this team I, I trust. And they're gonna trust me when I try something and it's not natural. Um, because there are things now on our job descriptions that are not natural for the three of us. And I, and I do think that there's something to our community, experiencing maybe something that they're like, oh, they're not picking the person that this is, like their thing. And then that trust is shown to the whole community. I will not, I will not say that that is easy or it's, not always well received.

Yeah, that's a really good point because I do wanna talk about the, the way that this shared leadership. Only works if you're willing to address hidden biases that people have. And in your case, I'm curious if there were hidden biases between each other, like even just experience bias or anything related to gender, um, that you all had to identify in the room between you, or if it was more between the three of you and others, so my, my thesis here is, do your work on power sharing before this experiment. What was revealed for the three of you in terms of power?

I think on a whole, we did a lot of that pre-work that you're describing when you came in to help us clarify things. We had been working together for a long time, so we felt comfortable having those conversations. I don't think it took us long to sort of break that down and have those conversations about. Kinda equal power sharing. But for me, the hardest part has been communicating that consistently the congregation and community and also to, as what Rachel was speaking to, to before, is the volunteers that we work with closely. I naively thought, oh, we're gonna present this new power structure or shared leadership, and it's like one and done. I'll, like, we'll talk about it once, we'll put it in an email and people will. Well obviously like it takes a lot of time. and I still feel like we are going through that. Where it's most obvious to me is what people bring to us to ask to do.

The power sharing thing is really interesting to me. And, and, I have been living a lot, just true confession, living a lot in the, anger around the patriarchal world. So I, that's kind of more where I landed in your question. But, I think within the three of us that doesn't feel like a power struggle at all. In fact, will has always been a person, even when he was my boss, that I felt really supported, um, given a voice. Like all of those things, when we step out of the context of our community into meeting with other churches and things like that, that's when I feel it. And, I would say Will is always like really supportive. Like, you should just go, you can represent all souls. And I'll and kind of be given a voice and at the end of the day I'm like, I wish he was with me, then at the moment he could advocate for like. Let's, you know what Rachel says or whatever. And not that I need that, but it's really interesting to feel so in, in our team and in our community. And then when you get of that, I feel like that's where the power, the power struggle comes with gender, in our context. and, and education. I'd say there's a lot of labels around, well, did you go to school for this? And those kind of things.

Because you did, you're ordained, right, Rachel?

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. So this is really interesting. Like your request would be that will accompanies you versus you just like shutting down the patriarchy on your own. And that is a, true fact what we need. Sometimes we need the traditional, powerful person to physically accompany and Will would be sharing his power in front of everybody with you. Like that is how we teach people is for will to sit there and be like, whatever she said. Um, Will, do you, do you feel like you're doing that over and over like that? That that's the labor of social justice for you, or how, do you see your role in dismantling the power system?

This co-leadership idea does not work if you're conflict, avoid it. We have more conflict moving into this than we have and we've had to learn on conflict skills and probably more vulnerability skills. And some of it is not like we know in advance justice wise what it is. Like, I don't know, what it's gonna feel like being in the room and letting go of power or having to step in or, I don't know until we're doing it and then we have to come back and be like, that did not feel good. But it's that open conflict ability to say, Hey, can we have a conversation? 'cause something was off with that interaction. Like after a meeting or after a decision or after something. That has been the hard. And I think that's why, at times a hierarchical structure is 'cause it's just a to avoid conflict. Um, for me, because I don't, I don't have feedback. 'cause I, I'm kind of the boss and it's my decision and I'm the one who's gonna take the blame for it. And you know, you can take this victim CEO role it doesn't feel like major justice work. It just feels Relational

I wish that you all could record yourselves doing your shared work and Projected on a screen for everyone to see what it's actually like, because internally you're building the kind of world you hope exists outside of the three of you. A microcosm of what you hope the larger community would, would do as well.

I mean, they are all these like utopia ideas, but the problem is, is it takes a fricking lot of work to do it, and I don't think I can do it universally. Can I do it with two friends? In a small context, we're trying it and we're working it and it's better than we had experienced before, but I just think there's something that we long for. As humans but it just feels really hard. Or we've been given a system that says, oh, that's inefficient. Who's gonna be responsible? Who's the macho person who makes all the deci? And when we can set those aside just for a second and be like, well, I wonder if there's another way. And that's what these Leah and Rachel are so good at, like, Hey, I know this is how you've been trained, how you've been told, what you've seen, but I, I'm just curious. Maybe there's another way. And it's like, well, I don't know it, that's for sure. So who wants to talk first?

I really think you, you are onto something and the reason I think that is that what you three are doing. Mirrors the kind of leadership that we crave, especially right now when we have a monarchy.

Thank you. It's validating to hear that we are changing the world, Hillary, in our structure. But it, it, I think it, it does bring like a sense of, I really wish that everyone could have this at the like, kind of micro level because if we were all doing this individually in, in our places of work or even in our homes, it does, it would make change, you know? I think it's a good way to think that it would be inspiring to everyone to be able to do this on that level.

I think it's safe to say that we're all craving a democracy now more than ever. We're more sensitive to checks and balances, power sharing and dismantling systems of oppression in our organizations. And while I think we could all knock our hierarchies down one or two notches, I do think that checking our motivation is the first step. Are we doing it because it would be really cool to say we did, or are we practicing something in our organizations that we wish existed everywhere? I've yet to see shared leadership look elegant. It's often awkward and comes to be after many iterations, so give yourselves permission to experiment and then choose a random color to name your methodology. Tailwinds is a production of Flying Whale Strategies, a consulting firm that is equipping teams to solve impossible problems. A special thank you to the All Souls Leadership team for your willingness to share so vulnerably with us in this episode. If you'd like to learn more about All Souls, please visit their website at www.allsoulsboulder.org. If you'd like to learn more about Flying Whale Strategies, please visit our website at flyingwhalestrategies.com. Thanks for listening.