Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques

“As you're navigating your workplace hierarchy, you're also simultaneously shaping it.”
Power shapes the way we work, communicate, and connect with others. But when workplace hierarchies become overly competitive, unfair, or unstable, they can undermine the very teams they're meant to support. According to Stanford professor Nir Halevy, the solution isn't necessarily to eliminate hierarchies, but to rethink how they work. In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Halevy joins Matt Abrahams to share insights from his new book, Level Up: Why Hierarchies Are Broken and How to Fix Them. He explains how everyday acts of communication can help repair unhealthy workplace dynamics, why recognizing different contributions creates stronger teams, and how humor, empathy, and a better understanding of your audience can help you lead and influence others more effectively.

Takeaways:
  • Healthy hierarchies reward more than individual success. Recognizing different contributions, encouraging collaboration, and valuing kindness alongside achievement can create stronger, more supportive teams.
  • Everyday communication can reshape workplace dynamics. Small acts of gratitude, empathy, and recognition help build trust, strengthen relationships, and create a more positive organizational culture.

Activity:
  • Give credit where it's due. At your next team meeting, publicly recognize someone whose contributions often go unnoticed. Highlight something specific they did and why it mattered, helping reinforce a culture where different strengths and efforts are valued.
Printable Expanded Takeaways & Activities

Episode Reference Links:
Connect:

 Chapters:

  • (00:00) - Introduction
  • (00:53) - Understanding Hierarchies
  • (03:14) - Signs of Broken Hierarchies
  • (05:14) - Fixing Unhealthy Hierarchies
  • (06:27) - Building Healthy Hierarchies
  • (09:36) - Competition and Collaboration
  • (11:00) - Communication and Hierarchies
  • (13:34) - Construal Fit
  • (17:07) - Humor and Competence
  • (19:18) - The Final Three Questions
  • (23:56) - Conclusion

********
Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.

 Learn more about how Notion can support your business at notion.com/thinkfast.

Join our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Creators and Guests

Host
Matt Abrahams
Lecturer Stanford University Graduate School of Business | Think Fast Talk Smart podcast host
Guest
Nir Halevy
Professor at Stanford University

What is Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques?

One of the most essential ingredients to success in business and life is effective communication.

Join Matt Abrahams, best-selling author and Strategic Communication lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, as he interviews experts to provide actionable insights that help you communicate with clarity, confidence, and impact. From handling impromptu questions to crafting compelling messages, Matt explores practical strategies for real-world communication challenges.

Whether you’re navigating a high-stakes presentation, perfecting your email tone, or speaking off the cuff, Think Fast, Talk Smart equips you with the tools, techniques, and best practices to express yourself effectively in any situation. Enhance your communication skills to elevate your career and build stronger professional relationships.

Tune in every Monday and Thursday for new episodes. Subscribe now to unlock your potential as a thoughtful, impactful communicator. Learn more and sign up for our Newsletter at fastersmarter.io.

Power and status hierarchies
influence our success in our

personal and professional lives.

My name's Matt Abrahams, and I
teach Strategic Communication at

Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Welcome to Think Fast,
Talk Smart, the podcast.

Today, I'm excited to speak with my
friend and colleague, Nir Halevy.

Nir is a professor of organizational
behavior at Stanford's Graduate School of

Business, where his research focuses on
influence, power, status, and negotiation.

His newest book is Level
Up: Why Hierarchies Are

Broken and How to Fix Them.

Recently, I've had the opportunity
to see Nir in action working with

Stanford athletes and coaches.

He is super smart and gives
sharp, on-point advice.

Well, Nir, welcome back.

We had such a great time last time.

It's great to have you back here.

It's great to be here.

Thank you, Matt.

Okay.

Shall we get started?

Definitely.

Excellent.

I'd love to start with your work
on hierarchies and then expand more

generally to talk about communication,
conflict, and cooperation.

Your book, Level Up, is
all about hierarchies.

Can you explain what you
mean by hierarchy, and how do

they affect us and impact us?

So hierarchies are all around us,
and some of them are informal, some

are formal, but they're all systems
that differentiate between those who

have more and those who have less.

And they can differentiate based on
ability and achievement and authority,

but also based on status, power,
number of friends you have, or number

of followers on social media, right?

So there are systems that are social
or in organizational nature, and they

create this tendency for us to engage
in social comparison to figure out

where we stand relative to others.

Now, your second question there is
really tricky and interesting from my

perspective because hierarchies do many
different things depending on whether

they're broken or well-functioning.

Broken hierarchies undermine
our individual well-being, they

undermine team performance, and they
undermine organizational success.

They're really dysfunctional
environments where people experience

ultra-competitive interactions with peers.

They experience them as unjust and
unstable, so there is no justification

for the existence of hierarchies when
they're broken and so dysfunctional.

But then we also have these
well-functioning hierarchies that

are places where we see mentorship
and achievement and respect, and

those tend to be based on common
value and pluralism and relatedness.

And so really what hierarchy is
doing to us depends on whether

it's broken or well-functioning.

Thank you for the definition.

What strikes me about hierarchies
is, in my experience at least, there

are almost two different types of
hierarchies, the one that you can map

on an organizational chart, and then
there's the one how things actually work.

Do you find that difference really exists?

For sure, right?

And, uh, some colleagues in this
space of research have distinguished

between kind of structural hierarchies
or structural power and then the

sense of power that you have, right?

So psychologically, when you feel
empowered to act, to initiate, to

lead, that's slightly different than
your kind of formal job description

or role in the organization.

I'm fascinated by both kinds.

We know that even in small group
of friends, hierarchies emerge very

powerfully and very swiftly, right?

So some people will dominate
conversations, take up more space

in terms of time in conversation.

It's really interesting to see how
ubiquitous and diverse hierarchy is.

Absolutely.

I remember I started a job and my
manager said, "You know, here are all

the reporting structures, here's who
does what." And then as soon as that

conversation was done, uh, somebody
who'd been there for a long time pulled

me aside and said, "Okay, here's how
things actually work." Essentially

what he was describing was the true
hierarchy, and I had to navigate both.

And it took me a while to figure out
how to manage that tension between the

structural and the more informal I want to
talk more about the unhealthy hierarchies.

You describe three U's that define that.

What are those U's and what
should we do about them?

So in my research, I discovered
that hierarchies tend to

break in predictable ways.

The broken hierarchies tend to be
ultra-competitive, unjust, and unstable.

And let me unpack what each dimension
or each characteristic means.

When I say ultra-competitive, I
mean an environment where your peers

are punching you from the sides
because they're competing with you

endlessly, fiercely for opportunities,
for resources, for promotions.

And as a result of this, you
experience a lot of threat, a lot

of stress in the workplace, right?

That's not a very successful environment
if you think about the psychological

safety that's required to have voice,
to express your perspective, to give

constructive feedback to other people.

And it might manifest in passive
forms of harm, such as people

withholding help, withholding advice,
but also it could manifest in active

forms of harm where they give you
intentionally terrible advice, right?

Hoping that you fall on your face
and they get the promotion and so on.

When we think about injustice in
broken hierarchies, there are really

three kinds of unfairness that people
may encounter in a broken hierarchy.

One is distributive injustice, right?

So you really deserve a promotion,
Matt, but the boss is going to

give it to his nephew instead.

The other kind of injustice is
procedural injustice, right?

So you don't know why certain
decisions are being made.

They seem to be capricious, arbitrary.

There's no justification being provided.

And the third kind of unfairness is
really interactional injustice, where

you're the target of rudeness and
harassment and abuse, and you don't get

the dignity and respect that you deserve.

What can somebody do if they find
that they're having to work or exist

in one of these negative hierarchies?

Is calling it out enough?

So part of it depends on how much status
and power they have within the system

and how much they feel empowered to act.

I will say that some people opt to leave,
right, which kind of contributes to

the third dimension of instabilities.

When we see swift demotion and promotion,
when we see a lot of turnover, that

could be a signal that we're working
in a dysfunctional environment where

people do not wish to stay long term
because of the stress, because of

the threat, because of the harms
to wellbeing and team functioning.

What I want everyone who is listening
to us to feel is that they are in a

position to fix these broken hierarchies.

They can actually take actions
starting tomorrow, and a lot of these

actions would be everyday interactive
communication tools that they could use.

Show more empathy, show more compassion,
express prosocial emotions such as

pride, such as gratitude toward others.

Those would start acting towards
repair of the kind of broken hierarchy.

People often tend to assume that
it's the job of HR to fix a broken

hierarchy or the job of top management,
but we can all actually contribute

to fixing these broken hierarchies.

So yes, leaving is an option, but
staying and fixing is potentially a

better option for the sake of all of us.

I really like that idea of taking
ownership and really trying, even

though it can be really hard to do.

But by demonstrating compassion,
curiosity, concern, you can actually begin

to repair and change the way that works.

I want to focus on positive
hierarchies, healthy hierarchies.

You argue that common values,
pluralism, and relatedness are all

standards for healthy hierarchies.

How can leaders create these conditions so
that they and their employees can thrive?

So let's start with the
common value principle.

The common value principle
has two aspects to it.

The first one is we want a hierarchy
that reflects who we are, who we wish

to be, what we believe in, right?

And so in addition to a
meritocracy, a leader can create

a virtuocracy based on virtue.

You will promote people who show kindness,
who are great in active listening, who

support others, who mentor them, right?

So we can add that to the ability
and achievements and accomplishments

based on which we promote.

The way you structure your evaluation
systems, your incentive structure

in the organization really shapes
kind of collective value and can

reflect the fact that we are a
team first kind of organization.

Let's say, Matt, that you have 10 thousand
dollars available to you, and you can use

that as rewards to motivate your team.

You could say, "My top two performers
will get 5K each," or you could say, "I'm

gonna find a way to use the 10K that I
have to do an event, an offsite, some

opportunity to come together as a team and
celebrate our collective success," right?

That will reinforce the notion that who
we are is a team first organization.

The other aspect of the common value
principle is really making sure that

the hierarchy creates benefits for
everyone, not just the people at the top.

So when we think about benefits,
we think about the wellbeing that

people receive from the organization,
the pride that they're getting

from the organization and so on.

When we transition from the C to P,
right, we're gonna do CPR for broken

hierarchies as we try to fix them.

So pluralism, the P, is really creating
an environment where there are multiple

pathways to contribute, thrive,
ascend, and lead in the organization.

We know that people are going to continue
to engage in social comparisons, but

when we add multiple dimensions of
social comparison, when we acknowledge

the value of different kinds of
contribution, that goes a really long way.

You want to work in an environment where
you can be recognized for the value you're

creating, even if it's not the typical
way in which everyone else contributes.

In my research on ballet dancers that
I did for this book, I discovered

that there's more than a dozen ways in
which ballet dancers in elite companies

contribute to the success of the company.

Maybe you're a very reliable partner.

You're always there for the other
dancers, and when you do the lift,

the dancers do not feel wobbly.

They're not worried that you might
drop them and injure them and so on.

Maybe you have a repertoire that's so
extensive and so impressive that you can

really do any number of different roles.

So there are so many different
ways in which you can contribute.

And the third dimension, relatedness,
involves bringing people closer

together rather than pulling them apart.

We want hierarchies that actually
reinforce positive, strong ties

between members of the organization.

And so C and P and R together reinforce
each other in the same way that three

symptoms of the broken hierarchy, right,
the ultra-competitiveness and injustice

and instability are part of the same
syndrome that breaks hierarchies.

I think it's interesting that you use CPR.

We can use it for broken hearts and
broken hierarchies, and it can help.

And one of the things you shared
that I've always found fascinating

about your work is you're very
creative where you do your studying.

You work with ballet companies.

I know you and I have collaborated
with Stanford athletes.

I love that you find interesting
places to find the work.

You've done a lot of work with athletes.

I've studied athletes.

I think it's fascinating.

We've done research published earlier
this year about how we can create

collaborative environments, even in these
seemingly very competitive environments.

So think about student athletes
who are high achievers, very

competitive from a very young age.

What we discovered is that if you're
able to create internal collaboration

with the athletic teams, they feel
a greater sense of autonomy, right?

That's very important for their well-being
and for their performance in a team.

And I think one of the solutions
that I also mentioned in the book in

that regard is compartmentalization.

We're going to compete fiercely on
the field, on the court, or on the

water, but when we're back in our
dining halls and in the classrooms

and in the dorms, 100% support.

We're going to support
each other on social media.

We're going to support
each other in person.

So we're fierce competitors on the
court, but everywhere else, 100% support.

What you're highlighting
there is the role of values.

The value that we have as a team is that
we compete when it is time to compete,

and we support when it is time to support.

So having that strong value is important,
which means when you're recruiting, when

you're retaining, the values that empower
or build those hierarchies really matter.

Something else that really matters
is communication, as you know, near

and dear to my heart, and you've
even inferred that communication can

support and enable healthy hierarchies,
but can certainly be involved in

making very bad negative hierarchies.

What advice and guidance do you
have for how communication can be

used effectively in hierarchies?

I think one way in which we want to
support the kind of fixing of broken

hierarchies is by understanding how
we can do a lot of small actions

on a daily basis to kind of support
a well-functioning hierarchy.

For example, there are almost no barriers
to writing a gratitude letter, right?

You can be the CEO and
write a gratitude letter.

You can be a new employee and send a
gratitude note to someone who showed

you the ropes, just like your story
earlier about kind of an old-timer

who was helpful in guiding you.

We can help others by
modeling kind behavior.

We can encourage others to recognize
contributions of teammates.

Let's say we have a committee meeting
or a team meeting where someone is kind

of making a unique kind of contribution.

We're going to emphasize this, reiterate
the value there, kind of reinforce it.

We believe it has merit and a
really important contribution

to our achievements.

A lot of the specific behaviors within the
relatedness principle in the CPR framework

are communication behaviors, and I'll
give you one example from law enforcement.

So our colleague here in MS&E,
Arvind Karunakaran, has this

fabulous research on 911 dispatchers.

911 dispatchers are not always held
in high regard by police officers.

That's because they're not sworn officers.

That creates a problem for
you and me when we call 911.

We expect someone to show up and help
us, and that depends on the ability

of the 911 dispatcher to influence
the police officer to actually

go and be where they're needed.

Arvind's discovery is that sometimes they
actually use humor as a very effective

tool to influence these stubborn police
officers who are sitting in their car

and not going to where they need to be.

They will go on the radio where other
police officers hear them, and these

police officers have high status,
and they would say, "I see that

you're parked outside a casino and
someone just won a lot of money there.

Maybe you should go inside and gamble
if you have some extra time, officer."

And others would chime in, right?

The other police officers would say,
"He does have a poker face," or,

"Wasn't he a gambler way back and
now he's busting dealers?" And so on.

And that sense of humor
is doing several things.

First, it gets the attention
of that police officer in

the car who's not moving.

Second, it allows people to
reinforce relatedness, right?

We're all laughing together, and it
builds a coalition with the high-status

police officers who are now helping
the lower-status 911 dispatcher to

do their job and keep all of us safe
and protected and receiving help.

So I love these very creative
communication-based solutions

that help hierarchies function.

Both of the examples you use, using
connecting communication, bringing shared

experience or expressing gratitude, are
relatively low stakes and pay dividends,

not just for the initial interaction, but
by goodwill in the future as well, and I

think that's really useful to think about.

And the big thing there for
me is they're not risky to do.

Nir, I want to switch away from your
work on hierarchy, which is really

interesting, to other work you do,
which I also find really fascinating.

One of the very first times I learned
of your work was in a program we taught

in together where we were talking
about audiences and understanding

audiences when you communicate.

We talk a lot about the importance of
knowing your audience on this show.

When you were on the show before,
talked about construal fit.

Can you define what this is and
discuss how understanding this helps

us to be better in communicating,
better leaders, et cetera?

I'd love for you to revisit that.

Construal fit happens when you're
able to match the abstractness versus

concreteness of your communication to your
psychological distance from your audience.

And I just want to define
for our listeners what

psychological distance means.

Sometimes you feel a sense
of connection to others.

You're very close because you are similar
in terms of your characteristics, or

you work together on a daily basis.

But sometimes you're far from them.

You're far from them socially.

You don't belong to the same network,
or there's a lot of gap in the

hierarchy in terms of the distance.

Sometimes you're far from them
temporally, or you're talking to people

who might listen to this podcast,
for example, in the future, or you're

talking to kind of people who used to
work in the organization in the past.

So there can be goal setting for
the near future or articulation

of vision for the distant future.

You're distant from
other people spatially.

Some people are working in
very kind of faraway locations

rather than nearby and so on.

When you're communicating across
large psychological distances,

abstractness actually helps people
understand what you're saying, right?

It helps to connect with them because
you're not sharing the immediate context.

So you need to talk in terms
of broader principles rather

than very concrete examples.

When we've studied the power of
construal fit in organizations, in one

study, we had more than two thousand
employees in a tech organization.

And we asked employees, "How often
does your direct boss," so short

psychological distance, "and how much
does your distant boss," the boss of

your boss, so two steps removed, "engage
in two different kinds of behaviors?

How much do they engage in concrete
feedback?" They're actually

giving you meaningful feedback on
the tasks you're doing at work.

That would be the concrete behavior.

"And how much are they articulating broad,
timeless vision for the distant future?"

We discovered that the satisfaction of
employees increased when their direct

boss engaged in concrete feedback.

But when the nearby boss engaged in
vision articulation, that didn't do

anything for their satisfaction, right?

That was weird.

It didn't have construal fit.

It was more difficult to
understand, and why is this kind of

proximate leader engaging in such
abstract communication with me?

Same thing when the distant leader
engaged in concrete feedback.

Why would you tell me
about a typo on page 27?

Is that really your job
to kind of check for that?

So we really want to achieve this
construal fit to increase fluency,

to increase effective communication.

I cannot say how important when
I learned that from you, that it

changed the way I approach, the way
I teach, and the way I communicate.

We often talk about, does your audience
know what you're talking about?

What knowledge level do they have?

What are their attitudes?

Where are the resistance points?

But thinking about the psychological
distance and how that impacts

what you need to say, that has
a huge impact on what you do.

So I really would like people to think
about when you are talking to people

who are far away from you in all
the ways you described, temporally,

distance-wise, you might change the
depth and specificity of what you say.

I think that's really
powerful, so thank you.

Many of us have heard of humble bragging.

I've probably been guilty of doing
that, but you and your co-authors

did research into humorous bragging.

How does humor bragging work, and how
can job candidates, entrepreneurs,

and others leverage humor bragging?

Humor bragging happens when you're
combining kind of two desirable

standards of impression management.

One is coming across as competent,
and the other one is coming

across as relatable, as warm.

And when you're talking about your
achievements, your accomplishments

in a way that's humorous, you're
sending the message that you're

kind of a relatable colleague.

We want to spend time with you.

We want to get to know you.

We discovered in our research that when
you add to a CV sent to recruiters,

we did it just one line of humor
bragging in the CV gets significantly

more callbacks from recruiters.

When we analyzed four seasons of
Shark Tank, we discovered that

humor bragging actually works
better than other types of humor.

So selfie-facing humor might show that
you're relatable, but it doesn't speak

to your achievements and accomplishments.

It doesn't signal competence.

When you're ridiculing your competition
on the show, right, it doesn't

come across as very relatable.

Maybe you're more successful than your
competitors, but really to resonate

with your audience, you want to
come across as competent and warm.

So let's say you're interviewing,
Matt, for a job where they're looking

for people who are really high in
conscientiousness and would pay attention

to detail because you're going to
have to review a lot of contracts.

So you could try saying something
like, "Well, I tend to see faces in

the clouds, and I tend to see typos
in my friend's texts, and I will find

all of those typos that will save us
thousands of dollars in our contract."

So letting them see you as a friend and
see you as this person looking at the

clouds, but also as someone that will
save a lot of money for the company.

I like this idea of using levity as a tool
to demonstrate both competence and warmth.

The very first concept that we
teach in my strategic communication

class is how to balance that
tension of competence and warmth.

They're both important, and using
levity humor can help, and you studied

it in some really high value and
important situations, job interviews,

looking for money, other situations.

So I like this idea of using
humor to help you put forward your

competence, but show that you're warm.

Thank you.

I knew this conversation was
going to be great 'cause you and

I always have great conversations.

Before we end, as you know, I
like to ask three questions.

One I make up just for you and
two you've answered before, but

I'm wondering since we've had a
little time, if those have changed.

You ready for that?

Yes.

One of the things that I think is so
cool that you did is you've actually

created a card game, and you help
people play it in your classes and

in some of the consulting you do.

Tell all of our listeners about the
card game and what results from it.

It's not just playing cards
to have fun, although it is.

What do people learn?

The game is a strategic game that
models workplace interactions when

you are in a position to influence
your own power and status, but also

other people's power and status.

We start the game from
perfect egalitarianism.

So each person in the table, let's say
kind of imagined table of 6 players,

have 2 power cards and 2 status cards.

And we each draw from a pile of action
cards such that in our hand we have

several different actions we could play.

We could engage in brokering
or gossip or put a burden on

another colleague, but we can also
collaborate and take other actions.

And in the game, people have
opportunities to vote up or down

on other people's kind of actions.

There is an element of luck, just like
in life, so people roll dice and so on.

And although all groups start with
perfect egalitarianism, within minutes,

there's a hierarchy at the table.

One person will have 7 status
cards and another will have 3.

One person will have 5 power
cards and the other will have 4.

The goal of the game is, if you wish
to win, to be the first person to get 5

power and 5 status cards But these people
have different pathways to get that.

And each hierarchy that emerges
in each table is very different

from the other hierarchies.

So when we debrief the game, we ask
people, "How did you choose your

actions? Did you monitor whether people
were hiding their cards or playing

with transparency?" And we discuss the
culture that emerged very powerfully,

very swiftly in the different tables.

And in some tables you see a cutthroat,
ultra-competitive environment.

In other tables, you see a
supportive environment where you

see a tide that lifts all boats.

So one thing that we discuss
is, what if you were to multiply

this six-person table by 1,000?

Think about a 6,000-person organization.

If people in that organization always
play burden and assign and compete,

right, that would be a very different
organizational culture than if you

were to play collaborate and broker
and other positive cards all day long.

But there are also takeaways for leaders.

Leaders really are in a position to
stack the deck with different kinds

of cards that will shape interactions,
that will shape communications, that

will shape organizational culture.

So leaders can really see
how they might influence.

And one of the takeaways really for
everyone is that as you're navigating

your workplace hierarchy, you're
also simultaneously shaping it.

If people are curious, they're
welcome to go on promotiongame.org

and read more about the game.

I love that you use a game to highlight
these really important values, and one

of the things I take away from what
you've said is we can all think about

the imaginary cards that we hold in
our day-to-day life and how we choose

to play them and the impact they have.

Question number two, who is a
communicator that you admire and why?

Recently, I have been really enjoying
listening to Eileen Gu, the Olympian.

I find her responses in interviews
thought-provoking and really fluent,

and I love to think about the
messages she's sharing with all of us.

I feel empowered listening to her.

So I also take pride in the fact
that she was a student at Stanford.

I really appreciated listening to her
in kind of post-competition interviews.

She definitely comes off as somebody
who's very credible and very

passionate and blends that in a
way that I think is very engaging.

Final question, what are the first
three ingredients that go into a

successful communication recipe?

I heard you earlier kind of use
alliteration with the three C's

you mentioned, so let me respond
to this with alliteration.

So let's go with three F's.

The first one is going to be focus.

The first ingredient should be
cognitively you should know the message.

It should be very clear and
articulate your main message

in a very compelling way.

So that's going to be focus.

The second F is going to be feeling.

You should communicate with emotion.

Hopefully, you're excited, you're
passionate, maybe you're angry about

something, but that will help you
connect with audiences, and hopefully

you can induce emotions in them.

So feelings on your side,
but also their side.

And the third element,
I would say fit, right?

We talked about construal fit earlier.

Know your audience.

Make sure the way you deliver
the message fits and lands well.

Focus, feeling, fit.

You can tell you're a professor because
you always summarize your answers.

Those three F's really will help
you have a communication that is

engaging, compelling, and importantly
memorable, as was this conversation.

Nir, thank you so much for coming back.

Best of luck on your game and your new
book, and I appreciate our collaboration

that we have both on air and off air.

Thanks.

Thank you, Matt.

Thank you for joining us
for another episode of Think

Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast.

I always learn so much from Nir.

The one thing that really stood out
to me was how to make sure that we can

improve our situations and hierarchies
through gratitude, through complimenting

and highlighting people's successes.

To hear Nir's first episode,
please listen to episode 30.

This episode was produced by
Katherine Reed, Ryan Campos, Alex

McCarthy, and me, Matt Abrahams.

Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

With special thanks to
Podium Podcast Company.

Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

Also, follow us on LinkedIn,
TikTok, and Instagram.

Please share our show with your
friends, family, and coworkers.