Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Lead The People is your guide to unlocking your true potential as an authentic leader. Hosted by Dr. Matt Poepsel—The Godfather of Talent Optimization—this podcast dives deep into the art and science of what it takes to lead at the next level. With insightful conversations and practical strategies, each episode equips executives, strategic HR pros, and aspiring leaders with the tools it takes to boost performance, inspire teams, and drive meaningful impact. Whether exploring the latest workplace trends or tackling real-world leadership challenges, Lead The People offers an enlightened approach to leadership. Embark on a rewarding journey to become the leader your people deserve—the leader you were meant to be.
Yolanda K. Davis (00:00):
We have lost kind of the foundation of trust. Most organizations actually treat trust just like a mood or as an individual feeling, but those things, they're not manageable. However, if you treat trust as a system, it's observable. You can tell it, you can see it. It lives in how decisions get made. It lives in how commitments get kept by leaders. Also, how accountability is actually modeled from the top down.
Matt Poepsel (00:40):
Trust used to be the invisible foundation of every great team, but right now not so much. It's cracking and most leaders don't even realize that they're the ones standing on the fault line. Today's conversation's about what's actually happening to trust inside of organizations and how it keeps breaking in the same ways and what most effective leaders are doing to get it back. That's the important thing. So our guest is Yolanda K. Davis. She's an HR executive, a Gallup certified strengths coach, an executive coach, and the author of The Trust Advantage, the playbook for Advancing with Integrity. Yolanda, welcome to the show.
Yolanda K. Davis (01:10):
Thank you, Matt.
Matt Poepsel (01:12):
It's so exciting to be able to chat with you about this. It's such an important topic and trust. I don't know. Trust is kind of cyclic in the sense that sometimes we have gobs of it, sometimes we don't have so much of it. So I think we're catching at the right time where you can take us to school a little bit here about what's happening and who better? I mean, you've had so much great experience more than 30 years inside of organizations watching trust dynamics and leadership dynamics play out. So maybe you just start us there. What's really happening and what are you seeing when it comes to trust inside of organizations?
Yolanda K. Davis (01:40):
I think what I'm seeing is we have lost kind of the foundation of trust. Most organizations actually treat trust just like a mood or as an individual feeling. But those things, they're not manageable. And so what we don't have and what I'm seeing a lot of organizations and talking with a lot of organizations is they're using trust as a feeling. And as I stated, you can't skill feelings, you cannot audit a feeling, you cannot hold leaders accountable to feelings. However, if you treat trust as a system, it's observable. You can tell it, you can see it. It lives in how decisions get made. It lives in how commitments get kept by leaders and then also how accountability is actually modeled from the top down. One thing I've always said and one thing I do believe in is that there has to be executive alignment when it comes to trust.
(02:38):
It has to be from top down. The leaders have to believe in it. They have to model it. They have to hold each, not just their employees accountable, but their peers as well. And so it becomes a system.
Matt Poepsel (02:51):
I think it's exactly as you say, a lot of times when we think about, well, somebody is distrusting, you're like, well, maybe they're just negative. I mean, that's their problem. How's that my problem? And you're like, well, hold on a second. There's more we can do to affect the system, as you put it, as opposed to then just saying like, "What am I going to do about how somebody feels about something? Just because we decided that we're going to roll out all this AI and not tell them what's going to happen to their jobs. Why is it my problem that they don't trust me all of a sudden?" Yore like, "Well, can we back up a second and talk about that?
Yolanda K. Davis (03:17):
" Yes, absolutely. And especially in the AI world, a lot of employees are feeling, and not just employees, leaders as well. Well, AI take my position. How am I going to use AI? The other side of that is the organization. How can we really hold individuals accountable? How can we protect our systems with AI? So there's so much that's unanswered when it comes to AI. This is why I believe that trust is more important now than ever.
Matt Poepsel (03:48):
Yeah, it's true. I always like to say every business is a people business and trust is sort of the, I don't know even how to say it, but it basically it removes a lot of the friction with how we make decisions and these things. What I didn't really appreciate was how distrust can happen even when it's not coming from inside your company. Somebody goes on and they see LinkedIn headlines about people that are losing their jobs because they coded the AI and then the companies got rid of them and you're like, "Okay, but we didn't do that too." I know, but it happened to a friend of mine.You're like, "Whoa, whoa, this stuff is more contagious than it might seem."
Yolanda K. Davis (04:20):
Absolutely. So they take the narrative and they run with it. And so while each situation is very different, when you hear these type of stories, you always automatically believe, "Okay, this happened to this person. It could easily happen to me. " It's not any different than anything else in an organization when things are cracked and the foundation is already cracked for whatever reason. And that's why trust is so important because when it's cracked, people tend to fill those gaps with their own narratives. Then you start dealing with how engaged are the productivity, retention. Those are the things that start to fall out. There's lack of trust. And that's why one of the things, and I think I may have mentioned to you why I believe that trust should be measured and should be implemented just like your payroll system. Payroll stop, the organizations stop. And while trust is not necessarily that significant in that particular way, what happens is trust when it is not there, then the commitment, the productivity, it starts to erode.
(05:32):
So it happens over time, not necessarily as abruptly as a payroll system, but it happens over time. So this is the reason organizations should look at this a lot closer and not just treat it as a feeling.
Matt Poepsel (05:47):
Sometimes we talk about trust as if it only flows in one direction, but I often talk about something I call a misattribution problem where if you think about executives, a lot of times now we see this big push for return to office and we say, "Well, why?" Well, I just know or I suspect that people aren't at their desks working, they're probably folding laundry or something. And at the same time, a lot of employees will say, "Well, the reason they want us to adopt all this AI is because they just want to put us out of jobs." I don't think either is universally true, but I feel like when trust isn't there, just as you're saying, we fill in the gaps and it causes these situations where now we're either forcing people to return to office and impinging on them in terms of their autonomy, their flexibility, or we're dragging our feet when it comes to AI adoption because we think something nefarious is happening.
(06:36):
In either case, it's not great. I guess my question for you is what does it cost when we have this type of misattribution or this type of trust gaps really on both sides, employer to employee and vice versa?
Yolanda K. Davis (06:46):
It's a huge cost and it can be measured. And like I stated early on, it can be measured just by the engagement, productivity. And the cost of it is you have individuals that are leaving because they don't feel as if the organization, one, values them a question on, am I being valued? Heaven forbid, we talk about work-life balance. But when you look at bringing individuals back into the office, as you just stated, there are some numbers out there. There's statistics out there that says either a hybrid or someone that's remote, you tend to get more from that individual because why? There's no boundaries. There's no clock that says, "I got to get off the clock, right? I have to go home." And so there's a couple of ways to look at that. If the messaging doesn't come from the top and employees are not in alignment with the vision, didn't necessarily understand where the organization is going, it puts individuals that are in mid-management into a situation because while they're not hearing what they need to hear in order for them to communicate the information down, but they're getting information from the employees, they're reporting that back to the executive leadership so it stalls.
(08:11):
And so like any other system, when your system stall, when your infrastructure is out of alignment, then it's a heavy cost that actually can be measured with dollars. Because as I stated, you think about when it's a retention issue, you think about the recruitment, how much is it going to cost to replace an individual? How much is it going to cost while this position is open? Every day that it's open, you're losing dollars, you're losing productivity. And so these are the things that I think a lot of organizations, many as a matter of fact, need to really kind of take another look as part of some of our values, it's in a mission statement, but is it in a system? Is it part of the infrastructure?
Matt Poepsel (08:58):
Yeah. And I think that you're bringing up this huge point that the managers are in this difficult spot in a sense that if they're not fully communicating information properly because maybe they've allowed themselves to get busy or they're really focused on the short-term tasks, deliverables and numbers, then they're breeding mistrust because employees feel like they're not getting the full picture because they're not. The other is that if they are in this position where the employees are asking for details and they have reasonable questions that aren't getting answered because the executives are moving too fast, then they feel like, geez, now my trust with my own employees is being put at risk when I'm the middle manager because they're putting me in a tough spot because they're asking me questions that I can't answer because I'm not getting the answers myself. So it's crossing my credibility.
(09:43):
So it's like, what other sort of advice do you might have for people who are in these middle roles, this really important linchpin inside of the organizations that are kind stuck a little bit in some ways?
Yolanda K. Davis (09:56):
Absolutely. So one thing about credibility and trust is it did not necessarily come from a green, whether it's with the executives or with the employees, it comes from being honest with your employees about the position that you're in. You can communicate that. I'm not at liberty to really talk about it because one, that I don't have the information, two, we're not ready to roll this out as of yet. So being very honest, even if you know the information, you can tell them, "It's not the time. I can't speak to that at this time." But I can tell you that within a certain amount of time or as timeframe, we'll get that information to you. It's also don't pretend that you know that a decision is yours. When it's really not, do not pretend that you have the answers to everything. Both of those rules can destroy trust faster actually than just saying, "I don't know, " are giving the unpopular decision.
(10:52):
The other thing is being in the middle doesn't necessarily mean you have to translate what executive leadership is saying. What you must do is provide the facts. You can't share how this person is feeling, that person is feeling. Acknowledge what is hard as a middle manager and then advocate clearly for your team within the boundaries that you actually can. So just you can let them know, "Hey, I'm advocating for you. I'm providing you as much information as I'm being given." But being honest, being credible, that's huge for your team. Even if they don't get the answers, they understand and they can trust that you're going to get those and that you're advocating for them at some point.
Matt Poepsel (11:39):
Yeah. I think employees, we expect them to be reasonable, but we also have to be reasonable with them and that involves listening, advocating as you're saying. We can't immediately produce all the answers. A lot of times when we make a big decision as an executive team, then we may not have all the detailed answers because we don't really operate at that level, but at the same time, those answers will come. We just have to figure out what are the implications of some of these decisions that we make. Very, very straightforward example. Let's say we decide to buy our biggest competitor and you're like, "Whoa, that's a big change." We've been competing with them in the market for the last 10 years and all of a sudden we're going to join forces with them. You're like, "What's going to happen to this? What do I tell my customers about that?
(12:20):
" It's like, "Okay, hold on. There's going to be a time for all those details. We've made the decision at a different level." The middle manager's kind of like, "Well, okay, but they have a lot of detailed questions that I don't have the answers for. This is where your tips are kicking in. Be honest, say, I'm advocating to get the answers. We need to be patient with it, but you are being heard and we are representing your view up and down. Yeah.
Yolanda K. Davis (12:41):
Yeah. Actually, I've been in a situation similar to that. Our employees was actually telling us that we were being acquired because that was a word on the street. So that's major infraction coming from our executive leadership because what happens is when the discussion happens on the outside and you're not communicating at least that this is a possibility or we're making plans for an acquisition, sharing that information upfront creates trust and employees are more apt to believe and trust that they're going to be okay rather than jumping ship because they didn't know. And so it can be very harmful when we're not being
Matt Poepsel (13:26):
Upfront. Yeah. And I think it could come from a good place where we want to make sure that we're buttoned up, that we've got all the facts, all the information, we're ready, we have a thoughtful rollout. Meanwhile, social media, everything else, it moves so fast that all of a sudden somebody heard something and now it's everywhere and you're like, oh, we didn't even have a chance to get out in front of this thing. It's like, yeah, you might have to communicate some things before you're ready because the world has changed. You were trying to preserve trust by coming out with this packaged response, but you actually ended up eroding trust because the story got out in front of you a little bit. You can see where the trust dynamics is so fascinating that it's moving very rapidly.
Yolanda K. Davis (14:01):
The other thing is being transparent is not the absence of being confidential. You can be transparent, but you don't have to share the confidential information at the time. The transparency is, yes, this is occurring. However, we're not prepared to give all the details, but I promise you the details are coming. Speak clarity because that is the place where you've built trust and you're able to maintain your employees in order for you to have that productivity while this whole acquisition is happening. I've spent a lot of time doing startups and mergers and acquisitions and a lot of change management. And with that, what I've learned is you must be transparent. And while some things are not necessarily readily available to share, you can definitely give that information and give some insight to what's happening. It prepares them and they don't feel like the rug just got jerked up from underneath them.
(15:05):
They know that they're coming. Also, you can give them a timeframe, but that builds trust, credibility.
Matt Poepsel (15:11):
Is there any sort of rule of thumb? Because I could see this being a bit of a judgment call. How do I know in calibrating how much information to share? If I don't provide enough information, then that hurts trust. But if I provide too much, then I could get in trouble and maybe even hurt trust that way too, because I've said something too much or too soon. Are there any rules of thumb or any guidance you'd have for how do I know whether a piece of information is really appropriate and helpful to share versus like, no, that one you need to sit on for a litle bit?
Yolanda K. Davis (15:37):
I really believe that it's a balance. I believe that it depends on the circumstances. Of course, if it's a closure versus just an acquisition, how much is this going to affect the employees that are within the organization right away? So I think it just depends. And so again, it comes from executive alignment because the executives should at least give mid-management enough information that they can share this information and they feel comfortable sharing the information. Sometimes you can't give too much information, of course, because confidentiality contracts, those kind of things that are in place are maybe not in place at the time. But the mere fact is whatever that you're communicating on the outside that you think you may have some exposure or that you feel that it could possibly get back to your employees before you have the opportunity to share all of the information, I think you need to weigh that and then you determine, am I going to make this decision?
(16:41):
How much am I going to share? Are we going to just say we're in the process? And so sometimes just that we get a closure first time that I had to put the WARN Act into place, which is basically not one of the things that everyone gets to do, but it's also not one of the things that it's very comfortable. But we shared six months out. We told the employee six months out, but we put some promises in place to ensure, on that they wouldn't just be told six months, just leave. We had a plan and that's what trust is also having a plan in place, not just for the communication, but what's going to happen while you're trying to work out all the details.
Matt Poepsel (17:24):
That's one of the most sensitive things whether it's a closure or a major job restructure or something like this. And a lot of times employees, of course, they want to know, well, who's affected? How's this going to affect? Because even if you tell somebody you're not being affected but other people are, okay, but I rely on other people to do my job. Are those people going to be affected because then it's going to affect my work? You understand where it comes from, but to say we want to make sure that they first hear things, that they get the update from their manager. That's the courtesy you would want. That's what we want them to have. So we're not saying at this time who's been affected, right? I'm being transparent to tell you that yes, some people are being affected, you're not one of them, but I'm not going to tell you who is.
(18:04):
It will become clear in time, but we want to give them the chance to hear that from their manager. That's one of those kind of balancing acts. It's not great. It's not fully satisfying, but at least it's understandable to say, "Yeah, if it were me, I would want to hear from my manager." I wouldn't want my peer or somebody up coming to me and say, "Hey, sorry, I heard about your situation." They're like, "What are you talking about? " That would not be how you want to find out.
Yolanda K. Davis (18:24):
Yeah. And actually that's part of the framework, my trust framework. Transparency is number one and then reliability, making certain that the people that are relying on you that you're being as upfront and as transparent as you possibly can. And the other part of that, if we want to really talk about the framework and not without going to any details, I can walk you straight through the framework with just this scenario after reliability, then we have understanding and empathy, putting yourself in the position that your employees would be in if they heard the information on the street and then of course being strategic in how we do that. So that would be the strategic pillar, being strategic in how we roll this out, being strategic in how we communicate this. Again, that's part of trust. And then at the end, the transformation happens. Either you make certain that you have other positions for these individuals to go into or you provide some type of outsource, some type of third party to provide them with some assistance in finding a different role.
(19:27):
So in the pillars, those pillars, it works in every situation.
Matt Poepsel (19:32):
I love how memorable it is too. You got your transparency, understanding and empathy, you've got to be strategic about it and then you've got this transformation that's going to happen if you do it right. Hopefully we do it right.
Yolanda K. Davis (19:44):
We always look for a favorable transformation because transformations can happen, but they're not always favorable.
Matt Poepsel (19:49):
I think it's another misperception people have. If we're going to go through bad things, we're automatically going to destroy trust. And it doesn't necessarily have to end up that way in the long run. It can actually, even though bad things happen, we lose a major customer or whatever it is, we can enhance trust depending on how we respond. I don't think people expect everything to go well all the time and only ever have good news, but it's like we can actually build trust through adversity if we follow a framework that you have for us about following the right steps and approaching it the right way.
Yolanda K. Davis (20:18):
I totally agree. The understanding and empathy pillar, this is one of those that when it's applied, managers would lead with principle and then make it operational. So making certain that we understand who we're speaking to. Also, the whole idea of understanding and empathy is from a Gallup's coach perspective. I always tell managers, you don't manage two employees the same. Are you looking at this person may be very analytical, they may want details, but then we also may have someone that is more on the blue side and so they need a relationship and so they want to build relationships. They need more information or you may have to talk one-on-one with this person versus being in a meeting and making the announcement. So it just depends. You have to really manage to the person's strength and not have blind spots when it comes to providing that information.
Matt Poepsel (21:15):
And you're really calling to mind the fact that it puts an imperative that we know our people and you might have a very diverse set of people behaviorally speaking who report to you, for example, and they're not all going to receive the same information the same way. That relationship person is going to say, "Well, what's going to happen to those people who are being affected even though we aren't?" And the other person analytically is going to be like, "Well, what about our productivity numbers? Are we going to get a pass on that? Are we going to adjust our targets because now we're not going to be able to hit our SLAs and all that? " Okay, hold on. Those are two very different responses. You're like, "Yeah, they're different people. " Of course, they're different responses, right? So as a manager, you have to have that impetus to understand, I know the difference of my people and I have to give in kind to what their needs are and not be like, "Hey, I'm going to treat everybody based on what I would want to know.
(22:00):
" Well, that's not relevant here.
Yolanda K. Davis (22:02):
I totally agree. It's important for you to know your team, but it's also important for you to know yourself as a manager as well because that's when it's important for you to say, "Okay, I need to make a decision. I need to be strategic with this. I need to ensure that I'm communicating it, but I may have to communicate this information differently depending upon who I'm speaking with. " It also depends on what type of team you may have, especially on the tech side, you're dealing with a lot of analytical individuals that don't need a lot of fluff. They just don't want the information. But then you're on the other side, maybe it could be the HR side, not saying that everyone in HR have the same strengths or the same personalities, but those are the people that's going to be worried about the people.
(22:50):
So you have to provide different information. I feel like day is still a structure.
Matt Poepsel (22:55):
I feel like reliability is doing what I say I'm going to do and if I say, for example, I'm going to go get you the information and then I actually try to do that, but also it makes me think about track record. A lot of times if you have this long-term track record of taking care of people, thinking about their needs, trying to get them information, that goes a long way versus if your track record is, "I've burned trust left and right and I wasn't reliable and it can never be counted on today, those organizations and they do exist, really struggle to make change happen or to deal with uncertainty, I think, because they just don't have it. They have actually the wrong track record, is that track record of hurting trust as opposed to protecting it.
Yolanda K. Davis (23:36):
You're exactly right. And that's why reliability is what's a very important pillar in this framework because what reliability does is, as you stated, it's not only just your track record, but you've already built this brand about yourself per se a brand or what people see about you. And so when you could be very truthful, but here's the thing, you've already created that narrative about who you are because of the things that have happened in the past. When it's important for you to share some very important information, are you going to be believable or have you said you're going to do some things and then you switched up on individuals somewhere down the way. So that's extremely important.
Matt Poepsel (24:21):
And in those situations where maybe the organization hasn't built that trust infrastructure that you've taught us or they haven't treated it like a system, when I think about how much change we're absorbing, it's just going to keep happening. It's happening faster than ever, what's going to happen? What do you think when you look to your crystal ball there, Yolanda, and you're thinking if you're an organization that hasn't gotten good at trust, what is your likely future going to look like here? I
Yolanda K. Davis (24:47):
Can be very honest with you. Some companies will survive and some will not. And it's going to be based upon the infrastructure and the trust that they've put in place because you're exactly right. There's so many different changes. It's not just AI. It is across the board. You have new generations coming into the workforce. You have AI. We've had COVID and just things that have just shifted how we do business. And so things are not going to ever go back to the same. It's going to keep evolving. And so the organizations that's going to survive are those that have a trust framework in place because they understand they're going to be strategic and they're going to understand how to communicate with the employees. But then also employees are going to buy in. You're going to engage them right away. You're going to be able to retain them because if you have employees jumping ship every time there's a major change, then you're starting all over as an organization.
(25:50):
You're spending millions of dollars trying to replace these individuals. So again, I believe that the organization that have put the work in, built trust from the very beginning, those are the ones that are going to thrive. Example, I've worked for this organization and one of the things the task for me was to look at retention. How do we retain individuals? Because we had people jumping ship. It was during a time there was a lot of change. There was a lot of movement in the nursing area. The one thing that I couldn't just look at retention without looking at the full spectrum of what was happening in the organization. And so being honest, again, it started from the top. And so when I went back to the executive committee to say," This is my findings, but this is what we need to do, "out of that came a brand new onboarding system that actually held managers and leaders accountable for their people from the day that they started the job, engagement, putting in metrics so there's not just accountability on employees, but also on the management.
(27:03):
How are we managing these people? How are we going to retain them in the end? So it's going to be those organizations that are going to not just put in the system, but also if this is not a program, this is not a party, this is infrastructure. And so we need to spend the money by getting that done if that means training, not the feel good training, but the actual training that we're training our leaders in order to have the skillset to become those trusted leaders.
Matt Poepsel (27:36):
And you're going to want to make sure it's there because you're going to need it as you take on all this impetus to change and uncertainty that we're absorbing, it's the best time to draw on that. Absolutely. Well, I want to give us a little bit of a shift here. I'm going to tee up a trivia question for us. I always like to have a fun trivia question at the end. And you have these two glorious books. You've got Trust the Climb and you've got your playbook that goes with it, the Trust Advantage. And each of them features this beautiful chess piece on the front. It's Queen, isn't it? Yeah, this powerful queen right there in the center of the cover. I loved it. So I thought we'd get us a question about chess. I don't actually play chess, but it's going to be multiple choice, so we got a good shot.
(28:12):
Here's our question. Which of these pieces is the only one in chess that cannot move backward? Is it A, the knight be the pawn or C, the Bishop? There you go. Knight, Pawn, Bishop, which one doesn't go backward?
Yolanda K. Davis (28:25):
Let's see. I think it's B.
Matt Poepsel (28:29):
Yeah, I think you're right. I think it's the pawn. So audience, if you're playing along at home, which piece can't go backwards? Is it A night, B pawn or C, Bishop? We're going with B, which is the pawn and we nailed it. That's the correct answer. It marches forward. It can never take a step back. That sounds like trust, although we do take a step back, but we can always go forward. So maybe that's good. Absolutely. The better way to think about it. I love the ‘S.’ My favorite is strategic and the whole framework that you laid out for us because being thoughtful about trust, you're teaching us to think about trust as infrastructure. It's a system. It's not a feeling. It's not a mood. It's not something we can just say, oh, what are you going to do? No, there's definitely things that you're going to do.
(29:05):
You're going to go get Yolanda's book and her playbook that goes with it. You're going to build trust in your organization. That's what you're going to do. And so my question for you, Yolanda, where can my audience go to do exactly that? Where can they go to learn more about you and about your book and the accompanying workbook?
Yolanda K. Davis (29:18):
They can go to www.yolandabooks.com. On that website, there's the book. There's a workbook that goes along with it and there's also information about me. The other place is on LinkedIn. I live on LinkedIn at Yolanda K. Davis and then there's an Instagram, which is iamyolandakdavis. Those are the places that you can reach me. Hopefully the audience has valued this and I look forward to connecting.
Matt Poepsel (29:46):
That sounds great. Listeners, I'm going to have those links for you in the show notes for only one click away from getting connected to Yolanda, checking out her books. Yolanda, thanks so much for spending time and really teaching us all about trust and just how important it is in organizations. I loved it.
Yolanda K. Davis (29:58):
Awesome. Thank you, Matt, for having me.
Matt Poepsel (30:00):
Here are my top three tips from my conversation with Yolanda. The first is that trust isn't a feeling. It's not a mood. It's infrastructure. It's a system. It's something that really the company runs on trust if you think about it that way. I thought that was so apropos. So many times we hear about trust issues and we think they're just somebody's interpretation or temperament, but it's more core than that. And I think Yolanda did a great job of helping us understand that. Next was the fact that it is a system in the sense that everything is connected. It actually governs in many ways how at least the human side of the system runs. And so when we think about everything from how we make decisions, how we communicate, how quickly we can take action, these are what our human systems are asked to do and trust plays an important role in how those systems work.
(30:44):
And finally, whenever there are gaps, then people fill in those gaps. When we haven't given them the information, maybe we can't, we should be transparent about that. Or if we just haven't gone to the trouble because we've been too busy, they're going to fill in those gaps and it's probably not going to be in a favorable way. So gaps and those cracks in the foundation, as Yolanda described to us, they really create a lot of risk inside the organization. They create a lot of friction, a lot of drain. That's exactly what we don't want. So I really enjoyed the conversation with Yolanda and having her teach us all about trust as a system with her handy framework as well. So I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thanks so much for listening. And remember, don't just manage the business when you can Lead the People.