Podcast-Intro: Welcome to Testing, Testing 123, a podcast
brought to you by TestGenius.
Jenny Arnez: Hello everybody.
We're so glad you joined us today.
My name is Jenny Arnez.
I'm from TestGenius and you are on the Testing Testing 1, 2, 3 podcast.
With me today is my co host, Mike Callen.
He's the president of TestGenius and Mike, do you want to say anything?
Mike Callen: Greetings.
Glad that you're here joining us.
And we're excited about today's podcast.
We've got a great guest with us and frankly we're all
going to be learning stuff.
This is new- new territory for us outside of our scope.
And so it's going to be a fun couple sessions.
Jenny Arnez: That's right.
Today we are recording our first session of two with Dr.
Brian Marentette.
He's from Berkshire Associates.
He's the Director of People Insights there.
Brian's going to, well, he's going to be teaching us.
This first episode is just about pay equity basics, and so Mike and I will be
asking Brian lots of questions, and we hope this is a beneficial time for you.
Brian, would you like to tell us a few things about yourself?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.
Thank you for having me.
First of all, it's an honor to be here.
I am a former member of the Biddle team.
Through two different stints with Biddle but recently we were acquired and
joined the Berkshire Associates group.
So I know the Biddle folks well, and it's nice to be back.
Speaking with you, but yeah, Brian Marentette here.
I'm an IO psychologist that specializes in a number of different areas across
the HR space and EEO compliance doing sort of TestGenius type work as well
with testing and validation, but also other statistical analyses surrounding
personnel decisions in the workplace.
So hiring, promotion, termination, and compensation,
which is what we'll talk about.
today with pay equity.
Nice to be here.
Wonderful.
Jenny Arnez: Wonderful.
Thank you.
So my thought for today is that we would do the reporter questions, the what,
who, why, when, and how of pay equity.
And why don't we just start with a definition?
What exactly does pay equity mean?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah, great.
So it's a term that's thrown around a lot.
And there's probably several definitions out there.
Fundamental common thing that you'll see is equal pay for equal work.
That doesn't mean same pay for same work.
It's a relative term in that it's considering individual's attributes,
their characteristics that they're bringing to the table, the characteristics
of the work that they're performing and then considering pay after we
take those factors into account.
Jenny Arnez: So can you elaborate a little bit more?
You said it doesn't mean same.
So that kind of brings a question mark in my mind.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.
So assume Mike and I are doing the same job.
All right.
We're both we're not going to be the president of test genius, but we're
a consultant doing the same job.
And I was just hired a year ago, fresh out of grad school.
And Mike was hired 10 years ago and he has had several other jobs as well.
In the consulting space, he brings a different level of expertise and
experience knowledge to the table.
If we were paid the same pay for the same work, that would
mean we're making the same.
Amount of money, regardless of any of those other factors.
And that's where the pay equity concept comes into play is that we
should not really be paid the same.
That's actually not equitable.
I don't think Mike would be happy if he's making the same amount as me as a newbie.
And so he has compensated more and you'd see that in raw numbers.
And it would appear that there's a disparity there, but behind the
scenes, the equity piece would explain that there's other factors.
That contribute to that.
So once we factor those things in.
We actually are making equal pay for the equal work that we're performing.
Now, my work isn't going to be equal to Mike's.
And that's where some of the more complicated statistical
analyses come into play.
But the concept there is that pay equity factors in these other
relevant pieces of information that might influence somebody's pay.
Mike Callen: Does it make sense to ask now, or if not,
we can push it off till later.
But one of the things that I always wonder about when I hear this term has to do with
job performance ratings, for instance.
How are different people performing, unlike the example you used, assuming
we're working in the same role, it's been the same amount of time.
How does that come into play as well in terms of determining pay equity
or in terms of the analysis for pay equity, or is that something that
occurs outside or is it not even something that gets considered?
Brian Marentette, PhD: No, good question.
That is, that comes up with almost every single client that we work with.
Many organizations out there claim to be a pay per for pay for performance model.
So they pay people more for better performance.
And oftentimes that is quantified through performance ratings.
That is a legitimate factor that could be considered in somebody's compensation
I will tell you more often than not
regardless of how strong a client pushes, me to use those ratings, they actually
have a very weak relationship to pay.
There might be some sort of individual cases where your star performer indeed
has the highest ratings across the board and they are making the most,
your lowest performer might have the lowest ratings and the lowest
pay, but all the noise in the middle
doesn't usually track very cleanly.
But performance would be one of those factors that could be
an influencing pay certainly.
Mike Callen: And that's an interesting point.
We hear very often when there's conversations either internally or
externally about job performance ratings very often it's a gift.
That everybody gets one time a year, somebody says you're
spectacular and that could really throw a wrench into these things.
So there are other metrics available as well.
If you're doing an assembly job, you're making widgets.
If you you could be, you could look at the attendance or lateness or,
maybe there's a whole host of other, uh, metrics that might be available.
Do those ever get factored into the work that you're doing or
get considered as criteria?
Brian Marentette, PhD: In some cases, yes.
In situations where you have those objective quantifiable outputs.
Yes, they often do factor in and that's usually on like variable compensation, so
non base pay commissions, incentives yeah.
So in, these days, there's not a lot of jobs that actually make widgets
where people can quantify the number of products they're producing and
things, but in some cases attorneys.
Oftentimes we'll see that obviously billable hours impacts the some of
the bonus structures that they have.
And it's really pretty formulaic in those cases where if you hit certain
targets, you get the incentives of course.
Yeah.
But those need to be factored in when you're looking at
some of those non base pay.
Incentives and commissions and bonuses.
Yeah
Mike Callen: I know.
I have a friend who is an apprentice electrician and he is almost ready
to become a journeyman electrician.
And obviously they have structures that are based around merit, which
is really associated with the steps that you increased through your
education, the amount of years that you put into each program.
And there's really a natural cadence from apprentice to journeyman to
supervisor, those kinds of things.
Is that a realm that you prefer to operate in?
Is it, are things more clean there?
Or do you even need to do compensation analysis in a realm like that?
Or, do you prefer to do it in some of the areas that are more subjective?
Or do you think it's more necessary in those areas?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Great question.
And yes, most of the compensation pay equity work is done in environments
that are not so structured.
It's particularly like unionized roles.
We have organizations with unionized workforces.
We oftentimes don't even analyze the union employees because they
are tied to that rigid structure.
And there's actually very little you can do about it.
And when you see disparities they're often, at a job title level, as soon as
we control for the grade that they're in or that step that they're in, it wipes it
out because that usually explains almost all the variability in somebody's pay.
It's tied to these steps and levels that they're on so it is the subjective
pay decisions that are most prone to bias potentially or just general,
poor practices that produce unintended consequences that might appear as
bias that are caused by other factors.
It's pretty deep into it but yeah,
Mike Callen: So is it an effect of the way that those unionized
environments are organized.
It's pretty clear that there is very little inequity that exists because
it's happens to be very much structured.
And so people don't tend to have to look at that?
Or is there some other nuance that directs you in terms of, you know what
what you might
need to do or for whom you do the service?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Right.
There's very little opportunity for their, for inequity to exist when you
have such a rigid step type of system And if you're finding any differences,
it's going to reflect people that are deviating from whatever has been.
So there shouldn't be any opportunities for inequity because
it's so structured like that.
And that's why we will leave it alone.
I will say from a different perspective there's kind of two lenses you
can look at pay equity through.
One is a legal lens.
Are they violating any federal or state or local laws that might prohibit
disparities or, apparent bias in pay?
But the other is more of a D,E, & I lens or a more of a diversity lens
where let's say we look at that job of electricians and we're not controlling for
those different steps and we see a huge disparity in pay between, men and women.
Now what does that mean?
Does it mean we have pay bias against women or does it mean that we have
only, got our female employees stuck down in these lower steps?
They haven't moved out of those lower grades and steps
to get up to higher levels.
Sure.
We can explain away the difference.
We can statistically tell you, ah, it's not an issue.
Once you factor in those steps, but then you then have to self reflect
as an organization and say why do we have, all of our females are all
of our Hispanic or black minority employees stuck in these lower levels.
And then it becomes a separate issue.
It's not really a pay equity issue.
It's more of that career progression, glass ceiling type of a problem,
which is a, another benefit of doing pay equity work is that it
can spotlight some of those issues.
Mike Callen: Another associated problem.
So there's two things I want to ask.
I'm going to throw this out here because I don't want to forget the comment that
you just made about, identifying some of these issues that could really potentially
point toward a systemic issue, right?
If you find that something's happening over here on the compensation
side you should probably look elsewhere within your organization.
And the second part, I'm just going to throw this out.
So I don't, I'll go ahead and answer that.
No I'll type myself enough.
Go ahead.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yes, no, you're spot on.
It ties into a tangentially related concept, which is the pay gap problem.
Okay.
Which is.
And I can define that before Jenny has to ask me,
which is really just looking at like an unadjusted sort of like ratio of,
let's say male to female compensation.
We're not factoring in any of these relevant pieces of information that
might come into play performance, education, whatever it might be.
You'll hear about the pay gap statistic in the United States.
It's published by the Census Bureau when they run their census every so often.
And the most recent figure is like 83 cents on the dollar, right?
Females earn 83 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.
And that leads a lot of people to think, Oh, we have a huge pay
equity problem in the United States.
And it's not necessarily true.
It's not really a pay equity problem.
It's more of a labor market availability or a talent acquisition problem.
You've got your highest paying jobs.
And we know from census data that there are more male employees
available out there in the labor market for these higher paying roles.
And the females are much more available out there in the
lower paying bands and things.
When you just look at an organization, and say, what's the
average male versus female pay?
Of course you're gonna see this 83% or 17% gap, right?
Females making 83% of the male counterparts.
And so through a pay equity analysis, you get a look at your like, job title level.
Are we paying people the same for, equal pay for equal work after we
consider these relevant factors?
But then you can also look at that broader sense and see.
Okay.
Do we have more of a talent acquisition problem?
Because we've got these pockets where if we take job title out and we
look at average pay, there's a huge gap over in this one business unit.
We're not bringing in any female or minority employees into any
of the high (level positions)..
And that conversation changes to again, the TA team.
It's not a comp issue.
It's not a dollar problem.
It's are we getting people in the door?
Are we not getting enough applicants?
Are we not recruiting appropriately?
So there's a lot of questions that get opened by these pay equity analysis.
Mike Callen: So if it's a an availability issue, then does that
enter the narrative in your report?
I think that would be a really important aspect, especially use that basic
example of national equity between males and females and a gap of 17
cents, and you're explaining it based upon, of an availability issue, is that
something that you folks ferret out?
Or do you leave that to the employer to really try to help to present that in
terms of taking action moving forward.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah great question.
And that would be an kind of an add on to a pay equity analysis,
because with pay equity data, we don't, we're not necessarily
looking for market availability.
We don't typically include that in a pay equity study.
It is something we might do as a follow up or other clients
would say that's great to know.
We'll go and drill down on that.
We'll take it from here.
Mike Callen: The other point that I was going to ask you about was
something that you mentioned a little bit earlier was regarding,
sometimes it's an issue of legality and sometimes it's an issue of DE& I.
And so there are certain classes of employers who are under the
auspices of certain federal agencies for certain reasons.
And then there's other ones who maybe aren't under the auspices of those
oversight agencies, but they are wanting to be very transparent and
they're wanting to do the right thing.
And therefore, they're spending time, energy and money on having these studies
done so that they can be equitable.
I think that probably a lot of people.
In our space and maybe even protect, particularly on the talent
acquisition side, our side of HR, they don't really understand
what that is or what that means.
But that's, you grew up in that space, the consulting and the affirmative action
and the EEO and the pay equity analysis.
That all really has everything to do with those two spaces.
Can you spend a couple of minutes and define those two arenas for us?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.
So within the, I'll call it the EEO compliance realm, because even if you're
not a, like a government contractor, for example, just about every employer
is subject to Title VII laws, right?
From the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination based on protected
characteristics, age, race, religion, age isn't necessarily part of that,
it's the Age Discrimination Act.
Age, race, religion, gender disability, veteran status.
So these are all protected characteristics, right?
If there's any differences in pay that are large enough to flag as being significant
and they fall along any of those lines.
Yes.
Employers are liable really for a potential pay discrimination suit for
those employers that are focused really just on legal compliance, there's that pay
equity answers those questions as well.
It's the same analysis that you would do for legal compliance versus a proactive
look where people just want to know, Hey, do we have any pay potential
pay problems that are out there?
The difference on the proactive approach is that, a a legal standard
is going to be very specific.
We're looking at employees that are really doing they're called similarly situated
technical term in the field, meaning, basically they're doing the same job.
You can look beyond that though.
You can see for, Employees that are doing similar work, are we paying
differently for employees doing similar work and do those jobs
predominantly, employ female versus male.
And, there's a case study out there.
That's a good example where an organization had a daycare on site.
It was run predominantly by female employees, right?
And they had a parking garage and a valet service with parking car attendants,
predominantly male occupant that role.
And guess what?
The parking car attendants, their base salary was like 5 more than the female.
Daycare caregivers.
And, you got to ask yourself as an organization, okay, you're paying
fairly within these two jobs.
There's no discrimination going on.
We're not paying unequally.
But then what's the value that we place on those two jobs that.
Arguably, the daycare providers are even doing more complex work, more higher risk.
They've got the lives of children there.
Mike Callen: But
certainly more hazardous,
right?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Hazardous,
more stressful.
I have three young kids.
I know that.
I've done both jobs.
Actually, I was a valet and I did caregiving for my kids.
And I would say this is a much harder job being a daycare provider.
But looking at it from a legal lens, Find any problems because within
these jobs they're paying equally.
But when you look at then across similar types of jobs, so like that band of jobs,
that's, just support work throughout the organization you're placing more
value on these male dominated roles, and that's where some of those subtle
biases that maybe existed decades ago.
Have just become the norm.
And of course we pay our parking lot attendance, 25 an hour.
And our daycare providers, 20 an hour.
So we've always paid them and it's never been a problem.
You don't know that until you run something, like a proactive pay
equity analysis that goes beyond the legal standard to really root out
those areas where as an organization, have you made sort of biased
decisions in the past that are no longer even a thought until they're
surfaced in one of these analyses.
Jenny Arnez: So let me jump in here really quickly.
And I, you've used the term several times.
I've heard pay equity analysis.
Let's say I'm an employer maybe I'm a VP of HR or HR manager.
At what point do I consider having a consultant like yourself come in and
conduct an analysis of our pay structure?
Brian Marentette, PhD: What would be a trigger you mean to?
Jenny Arnez: Perhaps maybe talk about proactive versus reactive.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.
Okay.
Sure
Mike Callen: Sorry the aspect of whether you end up in the legal side
of the scrutiny versus just the public opinion side of you know the DEI side
of things You know, I think that all factors into that as well, depending
on which side of commerce you're on.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Might trigger a legal review would be, you can still do proactive, legally oriented
pay equity analyses, but that really is going to be coming from your council that
might think Hey, since that there's some up there and, there's been complaints, but
maybe California has some fair pay activity here.
Any individual employee can kind of.
file a claim and say, Hey, I think I'm being discriminated
against based on gender.
And so from a legal sense, yeah, that there's no necessarily
like a trigger for that.
If you get a claim, you have to respond to that with a reactive analysis
to support your legal counsel and rooting out what the real story is.
And is there an issue here?
And do we need to settle and how much should we settle for?
And what's the back pay and That's a whole nother world, right?
That gets activated when there's a lawsuit that's filed.
But as an HR vp these days, I think almost every organization needs to
be doing at least annual pay equity analysis for a number of reasons.
First if they haven't been doing them, they've probably got some pay disparities
that they're just not aware of.
And until you resolve those you're just.
You're not treating your employees fairly.
But the other thing with the transparency era, now the state by state seems
like almost every month, another state is coming out with more, regulations
coming out all over the place.
There's going to be more questions about pay and what I'm making.
And, even if it's not within the same job, like my comparison earlier with the
daycare and parking car tenants somebody can easily point to another employee.
That's doing similar work.
And if you don't understand how your pay practice is operating,
you have guidelines that.
Your team uses in making offers and your managers when they're making promotions
should be following these guidelines.
But it's, it can be a lot of little small decisions that lean in one
direction against one group that over time start to compound and can produce
these disparities that again, like typical adverse impact theory, it's,
facially neutral practice that results
outcome.
And even if it's not a legal claim that you're responding to, just as an
organization, you need to understand these metrics, you need to know what your pay
practice is producing, for your employees.
Jenny Arnez: Now, is that true for any organization?
Let's say a small business that has 10 employees versus one that has 200.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.
Good question there too.
If you have 10 employees, you can still do pay equity analysis.
Now it might look a little different than how we might do it for 200, 2000.
200, 000 the technique or the analysis that's employed will change, but you
can still be doing pay equity work.
And this actually might be a good time to differentiate two
critical types of pay equity.
One is going to be your internal pay equity, internal equity, comparing
employees within your organization, maybe with, within the job title, one
against another or like I said, maybe you're looking at broader groups in your
looking at substantially similar work still all within your organization that's
internal pay equity, often confused with external equity, which is how you pay
relative to what the market might demand.
All right.
And there are a lot of organizations that will say, yeah, we do pay equity work.
We've been doing it for years.
We use XYZ company.
They give us the survey data.
They tell us what all of our positions are.
You know what the average should be and we stick to that pretty closely
And that's when we know like red flag.
They haven't looked internally.
Yeah, and the internal piece is where the focus Usually lies with
differences that fall on race gender age, etc you know the external
. Mike Callen: The real problem areas, right?
because the market tends to take play take the market tends to fix
those external problems on its own, because if organization A isn't paying
enough and B is paying twice as much, people will start get up and they'll
start flocking over to a different.
Organization, right?
Brian Marentette, PhD: And it's incumbent on the organization to
create their own philosophy there.
How do they want to pay compared to the market?
Some nonprofits say, you know what, we're not looking for the best and
the brightest, we're not going to pay in the 75th percentile we want
people that are just going to do this work in an altruistic way, and we're
willing to pay at the 40th percentile.
So they're going to pay below the market rate for that job, knowing
That's where they're going to pay.
So externally, they're not very equitable to what other employers might be paying
for the same work, but they don't care.
As long as they're paying everybody at about the 40th percentile relative
for their standing, then it's fair.
Jenny Arnez: So Brian, how often should a pay equity analysis be
conducted by an organization?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah, there is a lot of factors that,
influence that answer, but really an annual analysis will do, usually.
Most companies are not changing pay more than, once a year.
So they have an annual merit cycle.
They look at their, annual increases and adjustments they make them,
and then it sits for another year and they review it again.
And their pay planning.
It makes sense to do it at some point before or after
that decision, ideally before.
So you can look to see if we're, where are we at?
Are there any gaps that need to be addressed?
And you can do that through that cycle.
And if not, you look at it at some other point in the year, knowing that you've
got several months to remedy any issues.
The one Other factor there that would come into play as the flux of your workforce.
So if you have a lot of turnover, a lot of hiring, a lot of acquisitions
going on divestitures, you need to look at that much more frequently.
So we do have a couple of clients that look at it every six months.
Other ones that will, tap us every.
A couple of times a year, three times a year, if they have several acquisitions
going on and they need to see how do we look now that we've reshuffled and
integrated some new employees in here.
Jenny Arnez: So we are getting close to our 30 minutes length for our
first episode, but would you mind if I asked you a couple more questions?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Of course.
Of course.
I don't mind.
Jenny Arnez: Thank you for clarifying that.
So I heard you say pay transparency.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Yeah.
Jenny Arnez: And I think that's more of a technical term than I think that it is.
Can you speak to that?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.
So yeah, and pay transparency often gets lumped in with pay equity.
But transparency is really more just that employers having to share more
information about their pay practice, how they make pay decisions, even
what they are paying employees.
So there's certain states you have to share
if an employee asks.
A lot of states, you have to share the range.
First of all, the range for the position that's being applied, it has
to even be shared in the job posting.
And so like states like Colorado, that has to be within your job posting.
What is the salary range for this position?
Other states and organizations, you have to provide the average within your
job so that any employee can say what's the average pay within My job here.
And am I below or above that average?
And so the transparency era is that's really what everybody's
referring to is just being more public with how decisions are made.
What are the factors that, that go into, salary increases when it comes
time for raises and things like that.
But then also what are the data points.
relative for the position that somebody might hold.
Jenny Arnez: Great.
Thank you.
Mike, it looks like you have a question.
Mike Callen: Yeah, and I don't know whether it's a session
two question or not, and feel free to kick the can forward.
But I'm curious, I've read, I won't say a lot but often enough to be curious about
people being hired in because the market is tight right now at much higher pay
rates, pay levels than Existing employees are getting paid for the same job that
they have way more experience for.
In other words, if you looked at really rehiring your own personnel, it
would cost you a lot more to do that.
And so that certainly is identifying an issue, whether or not it's
a legal issue, it might just be a moral ethical issue, but.
Is that something you want to talk about now or do you want to cover
that in the next next session?
Brian Marentette, PhD: I can briefly hit that.
And it is a phenomenon that we see.
We refer to that as pay compression, where in general, some of your newer
employees are going to be making more than your more tenured employees.
And typically when we're running these pay equity analyses, we
try to account for the fact that.
Employees that have been there longer should be making more.
And so when you put that into the equation, you actually
see the inverse and it's not a legal factor or a legal concern.
These can pay however they want.
However, if all of your recent hires that are making more fall into one
particular group, that could be creating an equity issue along.
One of the other demographic protected group so companies
need to be mindful of that.
Again, it's not going to be a race, gender equity issue.
It's going to be.
Probably just more of a, are our older, more tenured employees valued.
Okay.
Maybe we need to bring them up closer, start closing that spread between
that group that we've just hired recently with a much higher rate.
Mike Callen: It's bad water cooler talk, bad optics, right?
This is what it creates is, it is.
Brian Marentette, PhD: And that's the downside of some of the transparency
work that's, that people are pushing is that now that those ranges are out
there and Incoming applicants can see they ask for the moon and they have more
leverage to push their salaries higher.
But at the same time, existing employees have that.
it as well.
Now it's harder once you're in to negotiate your salary upward
than it is at that offer stage.
So
Mike Callen: I wonder if that's why people use hiring bonuses.
So maybe it doesn't get,
Brian Marentette, PhD: that's a question.
Yeah.
Mike Callen: Let's factor it in.
The part two question.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Part two question for sure.
Mike Callen: Yeah.
Brian Marentette, PhD: How to manage your equity.
Yeah.
Mike Callen: Well, there's a cliffhanger for session two.
If you're dying to understand the answer to that question, then be sure
and join us on the next Next episode of this conversation with Brian.
So cool.
Jenny Arnez: Yeah, Brian as we wrap up our first session together I just I want I'm
curious as to your why- I know you to be a very purposeful Intentional individual
and you've dedicated well gosh what years of education in this space, right?
So yeah, what's your personal motivation for this career?
Brian Marentette, PhD: Gosh it's a field that I'm naturally drawn
to and that it the field of IO Psychology, it's involves people.
It's not quite HR per se, but touches HR obviously.
But I'm drawn to that type of work for whatever reason.
And then on the technical side of all the schooling that I went through,
We learn quite a bit about statistics and analyses and how to quantify
and use data to inform decisions.
And I'm also drawn to that.
I think the best decisions are made with data.
So then taking those two things together and then looking at, a career that
can be fulfilling and do some good in the world, preventing and correcting
discrimination along race and gender, any line really, it's rewarding.
Makes you feel like maybe you're doing something.
Mike Callen: So I have the last question, if that's okay with you, Jenny.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Sure.
Mike Callen: I want to know, and I know everybody else wants to know this as well.
Does being a pay equity expert make you a better parent of three toddlers?
Brian Marentette, PhD: No.
Mike Callen: No winning that battle.
Brian Marentette, PhD: I always say it's tough to transition from work Brian
to a dad within a matter of seconds as a work from home employee and the
rigidity and the regimen that you must follow with pay equity work and data
analysis to them, the chaos of trying to wrangle kids are starkly different
and I enjoy both of them, but it takes a little bit of a re reconfiguration
Mike Callen: hat shifting.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Absolutely.
Mike Callen: Yeah.
Yeah.
I'll bet you around the dinner table when you hear that's not fair, the answer
from you is really original and special.
Brian Marentette, PhD: So have you considers how old you are?
You are and he is nine.
He's had a lot more on experience.
Mike Callen: He's been on this job for much longer than you.
So
so much, Brian.
It's always a pleasure to to chat with you.
And this is a really great time spending time on the podcast with you.
And we want to thank you very much for taking time out of your day, to
come and share with Jenny and I, and.
And as well, anybody else who happens to listen to this, it's
been incredibly informative and I am looking forward to part two as well.
So thank you very much for that.
Brian Marentette, PhD: Thank you both.
Jenny Arnez: Brian, if somebody wants to get in touch with you,
they want to know more about conducting an analysis for their own
organization, how can they do that?
Brian Marentette, PhD: My email would be the best if you can throw
it in a window or a chat right there.
Jenny Arnez: How about that?
Perfect.
We're
fancy.
We're fancy around here.
Brian Marentette, PhD: I love it.
Yup.
Yeah.
Shoot me an email.
I'm happy to chat with people whenever.
And sometimes offer some free free advice as well.
Jenny Arnez: Wonderful.
Thank you to our listeners and to our viewers as well for joining us today and
make sure you tune in next time for part two with our conversation with Brian.
Thank you very much.
Podcast Outro: Thanks for tuning in to Testing Testing 123 brought to you by
TestGenius and Biddle Consulting Group.
Visit our website at testgenius.com for more information.