Building Psychological Safety in Your Team

Called to Coach Webcast Series -- Season 12, Episode 7

Below are audio and video plus a transcript of the conversation, including time stamps.

A psychologically safe workplace is one in which employees have permission to speak up, to "tell the truth, whatever that looks like." But beyond that, a safe workplace is one that doesn't harm or injure its employees psychologically. So says Allan Watkinson, Principal in Gallup's Sydney, Australia, office. How has the pandemic advanced our understanding of safety and its relationship to organizational performance? How can managers better foster an environment of safety? And what part can engagement and valuing each employee's strengths play in that process? Join Allan and Gallup's Alicia Corsar and enhance your understanding of and organizational focus on safety.

It's really critical that managers [engage in regular, meaningful conversations with each team member]. They can go a long way to reducing the risk of psychosocial hazards if they do that.

Allan Watkinson, 12:28

Understanding [people's] strengths and being able to embed that into the culture definitely fosters far more of a psychologically safe environment.

Alicia Corsar, 22:29

One of the key questions that leaders can ask and should ask is, Are employees better psychologically, as a result of working for us?

Allan Watkinson, 29:37

Jim Collison 0:00
Hello, everybody. I am Jim Collison. I'm Gallup's CliftonStrengths^® Community Manager. We want to welcome you to this Building Psychological Safety in Your Teams here on a LinkedIn Live. We'll give you a second to get connected. Apologize for being just a few minutes late. If you're joining us, we'd love to have your Top 5 there in chat. If you want to get started, if you're joining us there, and you want to throw that in chat, let us, and you know your Top 5, put those in chat. And we're asking this question before we get started here: In one word, just one -- you could use two if you want; that'd be OK. Maybe even three is fine -- but in one word, tell us how you're feeling today. You can throw those in chat. We'll be getting to those here in just a second. I want to introduce my guests here with me today. Allan Watkinson -- I'll introduce him first -- Allan, welcome. Tell us a little bit about what you do for Gallup and tell us your Top 5 as well.

Meet Our Guests on This Episode

Allan Watkinson 0:51
Yeah, thank you, Jim. Good to be here. I've been at Gallup just over 15 years. And my day job is a Principal at Gallup here in Sydney. And I help leaders improve outcomes for businesses through, by creating better workplaces that they lead. So in a nutshell, everything's about improving workplace performance through people. And my Top 5 that I really like that have served me well -- No. 1 Harmony^®, Connectedness^®, Learner^®, Relator^® and Significance^®.

Jim Collison 1:22
That's great. Allan, thanks for coming in. You said your day job -- it's day for you, night for me. So welcome to the world of, of doing these across time zones. Alicia Corsar is also my guest today. Alicia, same question to you: Tell us what you do for Gallup and, and your Top 5 as well.

Alicia Corsar 1:38
Hi, everyone. So yeah, Alicia Corsar here. And I lead with Achiever^®, Learner^®, Arranger^®, Focus^® and Relator^®. And I'm a Gallup Workplace Adviser in Australia. So I get the pleasure of working with business leaders and clients across all different industries, supporting and really finding out and supporting them on all the different challenges that they're facing within their workforce. Years ago, I was actually a client of Gallup and I worked within a large hotel corporation, so worked with a variety of different teams. And we partnered with Gallup in culture transformation and engagement, and so I'm excited now to being on the other side in workplace advisory and, really, this area of ensuring their psychological safety within teams, you know, is critical, as we know. Also one of the biggest areas that I get asked from business leaders to, that they reach out to us to support them on as well. So I think maybe we should go ahead and kick off. Oh, sorry.

Jim Collison 2:35
Yeah, Alicia, before you do, let me just remind folks here that we're looking for them to in chat put in their Top 5. And I haven't seen a many of these yet. But Mark threw that in. I asked, in one, in one word -- and you can use a few if you want -- tell us how you're feeling. And we'd love to have you throw those in chat as well. Alicia, go ahead, why don't you get us kicked off now.

Defining "Psychological Safety"

Alicia Corsar 2:59
OK, excited here, cause we are, we've got a great, great conversation that we're going to have today. So Allan, let's kick off with you. You've been working with a lot of our clients in this area. So we'd love to hear -- let's break it down. Define "psychological safety" for us, please.

Allan Watkinson 3:18
Yeah, it's interesting. When I was preparing for this conversation, I actually went back to look at the textbook definition of psychological safety to make sure I was aligned. And what I discovered is that this is a term that has been used by organizations for about 25 years. It was coined by a professor at Harvard University in about 1999. So it's still a relatively new term in business. But essentially, what a psychologically safe workplace gives employees permission to tell the truth, to speak up -- particularly on things that are tricky topics, things that are around performance, things that aren't right, you know, ethics and compliance and things like that. So it's really all about creating a workplace where people feel confident and safe to be able to tell the truth, whatever that looks like. I think that's, that's kind of the original textbook definition. My definition is a bit broader than that. When I think about a psychologically safe workplace, it's really a workplace that doesn't do psychological harm or cause psychological injury to its employees. So a bit like physical safety in organizations -- we would never want to physically harm our employees. A psychologically safe work environment would never do any psychological harm to employees.

Alicia Corsar 4:38
And, Allan, can you give us an example of psychological injury caused in the workplace?

Allan Watkinson 4:45
Yeah, so I, my mind cant was cast back to about 12 or 13 years ago, and I was in a client meeting with a head of HR for a client that I've been working with over a number of years. And we were talking about some of his people and performance challenges, and he was talking about his high levels of attrition, absenteeism, the struggle for his organization to attract and retain good performance in their industry. And during that conversation, it was interrupted by a phone call on his mobile, and he took -- on his cellphone -- and he took that call during the meeting. Said, "Excuse me," and it was one of his team members. And it turned out that that was, call was one of his team members escalating an issue to him where somebody, an employee in the organization had raised a bullying and harassment claim against a manager.

Allan Watkinson 5:39
And so he said, "Look, I'm so sorry. We're gonna have to sort of finish the meeting. I've got to deal with this bullying and harassment claim." And I said to him, "You know, how many of these have you had?" you know. And he said, "This is the third one I've had this week" -- a bullying and harassment claim made by an employee, a staff member, against a manager. And so when we think about psychological injury, then, there's an example where an employee in a workplace has got to the point where it's got so bad that they've been brave enough to actually sort of take some action and call it out. So psychological safety, and a psychologically safe work environment, would rarely let an employee get to the point where they have to take that kind of sort of action against their manager or the organization. And so this organization was really struggling with, you know, those sort of situations. People were going off sick, not turning up to work, leaving the organization suddenly. And that was also starting to get out into the media. So it was starting to damage the brand of that organization as disgruntled employees went out and spoke more externally. So this can be quite detrimental, overall, to an organization's performance.

The Pandemic's Effect

Jim Collison 6:54
Allan, what do you think the role of the pandemic was in this area of psychological safety? I know, personally, for me, it was not a topic I spent a lot of time thinking about or, or learning about pre-pandemic; it has certainly been a very big topic since. What was it about that that, that maybe changed things? Or what what's your insight into that? And you can continue to throw your Top 5 in chat if you like, and chat would also be a place for questions as well. But Allan, what was different about that, do you think?

Allan Watkinson 7:24
The pandemic generally was a bad thing for most people. But there was some things that it did highlight that actually have now raised and elevated the importance of things like burnout. So we have seen through our polling that levels of burnout, reported burnout, stress actually increased during the pandemic. So I think the pandemic has shone a light on things like burnout, stress that are actually, to some degree, caused by workplaces, and workplaces that aren't psychologically safe. So yes, there was the external impact of COVID and all this external stress that was inflicted on all of us to some degree. But what the COVID situation highlighted was that organizations also need to play a more proactive role in, you know, looking after the psychological health of their employees. And failing to do that can be detrimental.

Jim Collison 8:24
So you say, "Failing to do that." I mean, what are some of the hazards associated with not addressing this? You know, the, to your example of, you know, maybe in the past, if, if somebody got a phone call, and they were like, "There's some bullying going on," it was, it could have been ignored. What, what's different today that, that, that, when we think about managing it or prioritizing it, why is that so much different today?

Allan Watkinson 8:51
I think it's always been there. But we, over time, we've realized the strong relationship between organizational performance and psychological safety, and through our research and others' research and just focus more on it over time. So every organization that I've ever worked with cares about their performance levels, to a huge degree. And so the, the impact that you can, that it can have on performance for an organization typically has a range. I think if you have a, an organization that is psychologically unsafe, that has, you know, a lot of the issues and challenges that we're talking about, the best-case scenario for that organization is they may have a bit of disengagement. They may suffer from some ethics and compliance challenges. They may not have as many good ideas come to the table, because people don't feel confident to be able to speak up and raise all the good ideas or, or raise the issues or problems. So there's not a good communication channel from employees.

Allan Watkinson 9:54
And so, therefore, organizational performance starts to suffer. Maybe you lose some good people that you didn't see coming. A lot of absenteeism, struggle to attract good people, low productivity levels, disengagement. So, I see that as the best-case scenario. And then the worst-case scenario is, you know, where this persists, you get stress levels building. And we know that chronic stress then leads to burnout. And then burnout has its own challenges as well, as we've talked about. And ultimately, then, you get into the realm of psychological injury, where employees are psychologically harmed by turning up to your workplace. And that impacts their own lives; that can be very detrimental to them individually, detrimental to the organization, very disruptive. And the human cost of that is significant.

Jim Collison 10:43
Allan, I hear you saying, we created kind of a stress debt during that time that now is causing a little bit of burnout -- not a little bit, a lot of burnout from individuals. Alicia, I'm gonna throw it to you here in just a second. But a question came in from chat that said is, Do you think there's a skills gap in the, in the people managers that were highlighted during the pandemic? In other words, did we send, you know, did that create or did that expose an area in people-management skills that maybe -- or stress-tested that, that hadn't been stress-tested like that before? Allan, what are your thoughts? And then Alicia, you can weigh on that, on that too.

Allan Watkinson 11:26
We, good question, and we definitely saw a skills gap that was highlighted through the pandemic. And that skills gap was the ability to have regular, ongoing, meaningful conversations. We used engagement as a measure of kind of, you know, motivation, manager capability through the pandemic. What we saw was something very interesting: That managers who maintained those, what we call Quick Connect conversations -- those organic, spontaneous, unscheduled conversations that you have more easily when you're in person with your team. The managers who were proactive on those virtually, who reached out to their teams, even if it was a message, not just a phone call, they did much better on engagement, on average, than managers who let those slip. So it really highlighted, which we always knew, but it highlighted even more that, the value of a weekly ongoing, meaningful conversation with each team member. And that's something we can pick up a bit later in the session as well, because I think it's really critical that managers do that. They can go a long way to reducing the risk of psychosocial hazards if they do that.

Alicia Corsar 12:37
So I know that we've got, really, an audience from all over the world, Allan. And I'd be really interested to hear more on what some of Australia's new mandate is on what's classifying the psychosocial hazards as well, in line with what you've just been discussing with engagement.

Allan Watkinson 12:51
Yeah, the, here in Australia is sort of interesting. And what has happened in the last couple of years is that this, governments in Australia have elevated psychological safety to the same level as physical safety. So forever, organizations have had to demonstrate how they are reducing the risk of physical safety and harm through workplace health and safety policies. In recent years, they've then also had to demonstrate how they are managing psychosocial hazard risk. And when I talk about psychosocial hazards, it's really all about, What are those things in the workplace, in the social environment that positively or, or negatively impact psychological health in the workplace? And our main sort of government body has outlined, you know, a code of practice that organizations need to adhere to, and they identify a series of psychosocial hazards that need to be managed. And they're interesting when you look at them. You know, I'll give you a just a flavor for what they are.

Allan Watkinson 13:55
A lack of role clarity is the first one. Job demands that are too much for individuals to endure, that's heavy workloads or, or kind of things that are beyond the capability of individuals to deliver on. Poor support from managers and the organization to deliver on work outcomes. Low job control, which is all about the ability of employees to, to be able to deliver what's expected, you know, autonomously. Poor physical environment is also a hazard. Inadequate reward and recognition is one. Poor organizational change management. Poor workplace relationships. Unfair work practices. So the list goes on. What's interesting when I first saw those was I saw a commonality to those, that list of things I've just mentioned. And the commonality is the manager -- that the manager influences all of those things significantly. And what was, you know, really clear to us going back many years is that one of the root causes of psychosocial hazard and psychological injury is poor management. If there was one thing that organizations could do better is to improve the capability of their managers. That would start to address the issue that we've talked about.

Managers, Employee Engagement and Safety

Jim Collison 15:21
When we think about our own Q^12® assessment, our own employee engagement, whether you're using that or something else, those first three questions -- I know what's expected of me; I have the materials and equipment to do the job that I need; and I get the opportunity to do what I do best every day -- I heard you say all those things. And somebody in chat ad said, Deanna said, The code of practice, how do you build accountability around that? How do you -- I mean, to me, as a manager, those seem like three pretty targetable questions to say, Hey, in the folks that I've hired or that are currently there, Do they know what they're supposed to be doing? Sorry, I gave the, I gave the "thumbs up" message there on screen. Do, do they have everything they need, and are they working in their strengths? Can you talk a little bit more about that -- about how managers can -- and you mentioned recognition, which is question 04; I mean, you walked right down the Q¹². So spend a little time talking about that, could you?

Allan Watkinson 16:14
Yes. The Q¹² is a very good measure of engagement, as we all know. And it's a good diagnostic around manager capability to engage. What we discovered several years ago, when we were working with organizations to help them address psychological injury cases and reduce the risk of psychosocial hazard, was that as engagement improved, the number of these bullying and harassment claims and these other problems that I've described started to fall. So we saw a very clear relationship between engagement levels and psychological injury. And so then we looked at the Q¹², and we looked at the elements. And we realized that the drivers of engagement are also the things that actually reduce the risk of psychosocial hazard, and they go hand in hand. So start with, I know what's expected of me at work. As you pointed out, that's the foundational item for engagement, and it's the foundational item for performance. So the other thing that I think has been, is good news is that you can get high performance through engagement at the same time as addressing or reducing psychosocial hazard risk; it's one and the same thing. And so, when we think about how managers manage effectively, those 12 conditions really describe nicely what good managers do. And they're basic things, Good Management 101. But Management 101 drives high performance, and it reduces psychosocial hazard.

Jim Collison 17:46
There's a good question in chat that says, Is there a need to redefine what a manager is? And certainly in the roles that we're, as we're -- and Alicia, I'm gonna bring you back in here in just a second. But do you think there's a fundamental need to redefine that?

Allan Watkinson 18:03
I think it's more about defining the expectations of managers, because I do meet organizations that have not clearly defined the mandate role of their manager. Yet, there's this unwritten kind of expectation that they're there to look after the engagement, wellbeing of their people. So there is an expansion of the remit of manager. And it's gone beyond just engagement; it's gone into the wellbeing space as well over time. But I'm not sure that every organization's redefined that role. So a manager is thinking, Well, I'm just there to get the work done, and it's not my duty or realm to move into these other areas to look after the psychological wellness of people.

Jim Collison 18:47
How vulnerable do you think our managers are in knowing what's expected of them? Like, we spend a lot of time at the front line talking about this. And yet, oftentimes, the management structure doesn't get that conversation. They don't know what's expected of them. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Allan Watkinson 19:04
Yeah, we see that in the data very regularly is that we always look at manager engagement. And we look at that first item, and if managers aren't crystal clear on what's expected of them, we can't expect the rest of the teams to be crystal clear, either. So absolutely, it's, that's a good comment or question in the chat there is that the first stage is to really clearly define the expectations of managers. And the expectation should be to create an environment that improves the psychological health of employees rather than damages it. And they -- the good news is they can do that; they don't have to be a psychologist to do that. They don't have to employ psychological practices or whatever, or go off and do a Ph.D. in psychology. What they can do is the management basics well, starting with role clarity, starting with equipping people around materials and equipment, recognizing people a little bit more often, demonstrating care, listening to their people, you know, ensuring opinions count. These are the management basics that the Q¹² outlines.

Jim Collison 20:08
Yeah, I think sometimes the executive staff forgets it is their responsibility to the, to the managers to make sure there's role clarity and how that works going forward. Alicia, if we were to give you a materials and equipment question right now for the internet, you may give that a zero. Are you back with us? Can you hear us OK?

Alicia Corsar 20:27
I'm sorry if I turned into a slow robot for a little while. I, I am back -- just a good old reboot does the job.

Jim Collison 20:33
Hopefully, you've been able to follow along a little bit. What would, what would you interject at this point, as we think about this conversation?

Alicia Corsar 20:40
Yeah. While Allan was talking about the manager, you know, I was thinking, you know, an interesting area is that Gallup ran a comparison study recently with engaged, engaged employees and actively disengaged employees. And, you know, it's really interesting that 65% of engaged employees have reported out to be less likely to say they've been treated with disrespect in the workplace, you know, with their teams. And, you know, another one was that the engaged employees, 37% likely to be -- less likely to be diagnosed with depression from a healthcare professional. You know, and this is all, it all does come down to what, how managers are working with their teams. And, you know, we think about, you know, these, these things that seems so simple, like being respectful to your employees, and to your teams, and, and how that affects, you know, people's mental health. And some really interesting studies coming out with that as well, too.

Fostering a Safe Environment Through CliftonStrengths

Jim Collison 21:38
Alicia, I'm gonna follow up, though, with you on that, as we think about CliftonStrengths. We've spent a lot of time talking about engagement. We're, when we think about CliftonStrengths, and I'm gonna have you, I'm going to toss it to you, and then have you throw it over to Allan. What do you think, what do you think the role of CliftonStrengths, as you know it, fits in this framework, fits into this, to help with some of these problems? And then throw it over to Allan.

Alicia Corsar 22:00
Sure. Well, one of the things with CliftonStrengths is that, for example, bringing in a new employee or an employee into a team, it's, that, that feeling of being included. That a manager can understand what that, you know, employee's, you know, strengths are, you know, and that, and likewise for that employee with that manager. And having that kind of environment where you know something a little bit more about that person's behavior, and where, you know, in the areas that they may feel, you know, more stressed out or other areas, having, understanding their strengths and being able to embed that into the culture definitely fosters far more of a psychologically safe environment, especially with teams.

Jim Collison 22:40
Allan, you want to weigh in on that?

Allan Watkinson 22:42
Yeah. CliftonStrengths is a terrific tool to build psychological safety. People feel respected for who they are. They can be themselves. It builds tolerance within teams as well and understanding of the value of each individual as well. So a more inclusive culture as well. But in the absence of a, a good level of engagement, then the impact of a tool like CliftonStrengths is limited. So if I'm not clear on what's expected, I'm not equipped to do my work, I'm not having enough conversations with my own line manager, then we can do a CliftonStrengths session over here, and that's going to have much more limited impact. So we need to look at both.

The Importance of the Quick Connect for Managers and Employees

Jim Collison 23:21
Allan, you keep going back to this idea of a Quick Connect in everything, everything we talk about. How important is it, as we think about those tools of preventing this. Let's transition a little bit into this idea of prevention. We've talked a little bit about why and how. But as we think about prevention, how important is, I mean, yeah, how important is that conversation between the manager and those that they're managing?

Allan Watkinson 23:45
That is the key to success here. You do not want to get to the point where someone has raised a complaint against a manager. That doesn't happen overnight. That, that kind of happened, builds up over time through a lack of conversation, lack of support. So those Quick Connects, I'm always telling busy managers that, rely heavily on those Quick Connects, and see them as an important engagement conversation, important performance conversation, important psychological safety conversation as well. There are three questions that I recommend every manager ask on a weekly basis. And those three questions are, How are you going? How's your work going? And what support do you need? So How are you going? How's your work going? What support do you need? And in that order. We start with you as a person; then we talk about your work, and then make sure you have the support you need. If more managers could ask those three questions on a weekly basis to each person -- and that can just take a few minutes; that's your Quick Connect -- we would see better engagement, better performance, more psychologically safe work environments.

Safety and Performance Management

Jim Collison 24:52
That is one of those areas, I think, when we, going back to a conversation we had early here where, were the managers prepared for the, in the pandemic to have these conversations? We changed -- in some cases; not everybody got to go home. Right? There were millions of people still going into the workplace. Right. But completely disrupted from that standpoint. Alicia, as we think about, and as you're thinking about some questions for Allan as well, you know, kind of in that area, this, this idea, and let me bring up Deanna's question -- I want to throw it to both of you, actually. What, what, by which criteria can, can we measure the effectiveness of providing psychological safety via performance management? I mean, Allan, maybe when, or Alicia, When does this become a goal that we set that then we can measure throughout the -- is it, are we talking that kind of practicality in this?

Allan Watkinson 25:50
I've, my response to that would -- we may not ever assess someone, a manager, on the psychological safety of their team directly, but we should always make sure that they're accountable for performance. That's what they're paid to deliver on. And then we look at how they achieve that performance. Do they deliver it in a way which is positive, looking after the psychological safety of their teams? And we can look at that in a couple of different ways. We can look at it through engagement, through that lens. But we can also look at it more broadly through culture. So we do a lot of culture diagnostics for organizations as part of their broader survey. And we look at other aspects of culture, that, again, the leaders and managers of the organizations have an influence over. So, you know, how is bullying and harassment tolerated? How are unethical situations dealt with? So you can get a sense of the, of the broader culture through our culture asset index as well. So we're very often looking at other aspects beyond engagement. But those are some things we can get a read on the effectiveness of those managers. But ultimately, they need to be assessed on performance. That's why we're in business, but how they get there is also important.

Jim Collison 27:05
Alicia, your thoughts on this? Jump back in -- maybe thoughts and questions?

Alicia Corsar 27:09
I think one of the main things that come back in my mind was even just being, being, with a tool like engagement, if you are able to somewhat measure understand the state of the workforce, you're then able to, you know, obviously see where the gaps are. But you know, more than that, is, you know, how often are we having meaningful conversations, you know, with our staff? You know, and how supported are the managers to be enabling a kind of a framework and a setting for that? And then even, like, another layer is that, Is there a safe place for an employee where if they feel like they aren't being treated with respect, or they feel like there is some form of bullying, harassment, you know, do they have a safe place to be able to, you know, to speak with somebody about that as well, too? And those are some of the areas where, you know, if you are able to under, get a bit deeper understanding in that, then you are definitely fostering more of a psychologically safe environment.

Jim Collison 28:03
During my annual performance review that I had this year, my manager asked me this very important question, which is, How often do you want to meet with me? And I thought that was so nice to give me the opportunity to set the agenda level -- to say, What's important to you? You know, you pick the frequency at which you want to do that. And I thought, Man, what a great question -- Allan, you had some questions as well -- but what a great question to ask: What do you need from me in the frequency that we need to be together? I think I could have said daily, and it would have been OK. It would have been a struggle to get that done every day, although I do, I manage, I have someone that I manage that I do meet with every single day. And that's just part of what we do. It just, it keeps the ball rolling. We're just a few minutes out from wrapping this up. I'm going to throw it back to you guys. Allan, Alicia, kind of final thoughts, as we wrap this up. Allan, let me start with you. And Alicia, we'll give you the final word. How's that sound?

Allan Watkinson 29:03
Just a few things for different groups and organizations to think about how to manage the risk of this. At a leadership level, at a CEO executive level, leader level, then I think it's all about the culture. They are the owners of the culture. So what are they doing to role-model, you know, psychological safety? How are they dealing with poor management practices? One of the key questions that leaders can ask and should ask is, Are employees better psychologically, as a result of working for us? And it's really a, sort of an overarching question that then raises questions about the culture. And I think also then ensuring that manager capability is a key priority for organizations if they want to address psychological safety. But the great thing about that is they also get a performance boost through all that good work.

Jim Collison 29:58
Alicia, you want to, you want to have the final word? I'll ultimately have the final word, but do you want to have the final thought on this?

Alicia Corsar 30:07
You know, what comes to mind as well as I, if you're thinking about with leadership, and if they ask themselves with independent contributors in a team, and let's say they've been excelling, and they're performing really well in their role, and then they move them up to be a people manager -- Have, have you enabled them to be successful with managing their team? Have you provided, you know, training to become good people managers? You know, a lot of times, we've been talking about this for ages, about putting an individual into a people-manager role. Like they, they need that development and nurturing as well, too, so that they can create a really, you know.

Jim Collison 30:44
For those of you who are listening live for us today, thanks for coming out. Loved your questions. Listen, this is just the start of this conversation. And we'd love to continue that with you. If you, if you are in an organization, you want to, you've got some questions about this, you want to talk to us about it, you can send us an email: coaching@gallup.com. It doesn't mean it's about coaching; that's just an easy email address for you to remember, Allan, are there other ways for them to get, to get a hold of us, as far as if they wanted to continue this conversation?

Allan Watkinson 31:15
We're on LinkedIn, as we all are. So please reach out on LinkedIn if you like.

Jim Collison 31:19
Yeah, we'd love to continue the conversation with you. And there's lots of great ways to get that done. If you're listening live, thanks for coming out. If you're listening to this as the podcast, thanks for making it all the way to the end. And we appreciate you as well. Thanks for everybody for coming out. Hannah, always, she's our ringer in the chat room. And Hannah, thanks for being on the other end of this as well. We'll see you back for another LinkedIn Live. Stay close to us on LinkedIn, because we post these here every time we do it. If you're in Australia, thanks for taking your lunchtime to be a part of this today as well. And with that, we'll say, Goodbye, everybody.

Allan Watkinson's Top 5 CliftonStrengths are Harmony, Connectedness, Learner, Relator and Significance.

Alicia Corsar's Top 5 CliftonStrengths are Achiever, Learner, Arranger, Focus and Relator.

Gallup^®, Q^12® CliftonStrengths^® and each of the 34 CliftonStrengths theme names are trademarks of Gallup. Copyright © 1993-1998, 2000 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.