Developing engineering leadership styles: conviction, policy and consensus.

Summary

In this talk, Will Larson discusses the evolution of leadership styles for engineering leaders, emphasizing the importance of leading with conviction, consensus, and policy. He draws parallels with the culture shock curve, noting how some adapt to new leadership expectations while others struggle. Larson shares personal experiences and insights on developing these styles, suggesting they are learnable skills necessary for effective leadership in the current business climate.

Takeaways

• 🌟 Leadership styles evolve with changing circumstances, and effective engineering leaders need to adapt to these changes.
• 📈 The 'culture shock curve' can be applied to leadership, where some adapt and thrive while others struggle with new expectations.
• 🛠️ Three essential leadership styles for engineering leaders are leading with conviction, leading with consensus, and leading with policy.
• 🚀 Leading with conviction is crucial for making decisions in ambiguous situations where there is no clear consensus.
• 🔧 Leading with policy is necessary for maintaining consistency in decision-making as a company scales and requires standardized practices.
• 🤝 Leading with consensus is important when there is no clear leader or when a decision requires buy-in from multiple stakeholders.
• 🔄 The ability to switch between leadership styles is key to addressing different challenges and indicates a flexible and powerful leader.
• 📚 Leadership styles are learnable skills, not innate traits, and can be developed over time through experience and intentional practice.
• 📈 Examples of success and failure in leadership demonstrate the importance of adapting one's approach based on the situation rather than relying on a single style.
• 🔄 The speaker emphasizes the importance of being uncomfortable and stepping out of one's default leadership style to grow and improve as a leader.

Q & A

What are the three leadership styles discussed in the script?

The three leadership styles discussed are leading with conviction, leading with consensus, and leading with policy.

What is the significance of the 'culture shock curve' mentioned in the script?

The 'culture shock curve' is used as an analogy to describe how managers and leaders might experience a transition period when facing new or changing leadership styles and expectations, similar to how individuals adapt to new cultural environments.

How does the speaker describe the leadership style of the period between 2012 and 2020?

The speaker describes the leadership style of that period as one where managers were expected to support their teams and promote career development, acting as an 'umbrella' to protect the team from unnecessary distractions.

What changes in leadership expectations did the speaker observe after 2020?

After 2020, the speaker observed a shift in leadership expectations, with a move away from the supportive 'umbrella manager' style towards a need for leaders who can make tough decisions and navigate ambiguity.

What does 'leading with conviction' entail according to the script?

'Leading with conviction' refers to making decisions and managing execution on critical or ambiguous problems when there's no consensus among stakeholders or when quick decisions are necessary.

Can you provide an example from the script where leading with conviction was applied?

An example of leading with conviction is when the speaker had to address the perception of low engineering quality in a business unit at Carta. The speaker dug deep into the issue, tested hypotheses, and eventually concluded that the release philosophy needed to change to improve quality.

What is the role of 'leading with policy' in an organization?

'Leading with policy' is about creating and enforcing consistent decision-making frameworks across a growing organization to ensure uniformity and scalability in operations.

How does the speaker define 'leading with consensus'?

'Leading with consensus' is the process of building agreement among a group, especially when there is no clear executive direction or when decisions require broad agreement to be effective.

What is the speaker's view on the learnability of leadership styles?

The speaker believes that all three leadership styles are learnable and not innate, and that even individuals who initially lack these styles can develop them over time.

What advice does the speaker give for developing leadership styles?

The speaker advises reflecting on the leadership styles used in past problems, identifying the default style, and intentionally practicing other styles that are less comfortable but more appropriate for the situation at hand.

Outlines

00:00

🌐 Culture Shock and Leadership Styles

Will, the speaker, introduces the topic of leadership styles in engineering, drawing a parallel with the culture shock curve experienced by JET program teachers in Japan. He discusses how the expectations and styles of leadership have evolved, especially post-2020, and suggests that effective engineering leaders need to master three distinct leadership styles: leading with conviction, consensus, and policy. He also shares his personal journey from teaching English in Japan to becoming a CTO and author, emphasizing the importance of adapting to new cultural and leadership landscapes.

05:01

🛠 Leading with Conviction and Policy

Will delves into the first leadership style, leading with conviction, which involves making decisive calls on critical or ambiguous issues. He argues that this style was often deemed inappropriate in the past decade but has become essential in recent years. He contrasts this with leading with policy, which is crucial for maintaining consistency in decision-making as a company scales. Will shares his experiences, highlighting the importance of informed decision-making, testing hypotheses, and pushing through execution despite friction. He also discusses the challenges of implementing new programming languages and the need for clear communication and enforcement mechanisms in policy-led decisions.

10:03

🤝 Building Consensus in Leadership

The third leadership style discussed is leading with consensus, which is necessary when there's no clear executive direction or when decisions require broad agreement. Will outlines the process of identifying a decision that could accelerate progress, evaluating the feasibility of reaching consensus, and forming a decision-making group if needed. He shares a successful case from his time at Uber, where he facilitated service decomposition without a top-down mandate, and a contrasting experience at Comm where a lack of consensus during layoffs led to inaction and reliance on the CEO for resolution. Will emphasizes the importance of aligning incentives and the challenges of building consensus when stakeholders have divergent interests.

15:04

🔄 Adapting Leadership Styles for Effective Problem Solving

In the final paragraph, Will advises on how to identify and adapt one's leadership style to suit different problems. He suggests reflecting on recent challenges and noting which leadership style was applied. He encourages leaders to step out of their comfort zones and try different approaches to expand their capabilities. Will's advice is to be mindful of one's default style and to intentionally practice other styles to become a more versatile and effective leader. He concludes by thanking the audience for their attention and highlighting the importance of continuous learning and adaptation in leadership.

Keywords

💡Leadership Styles

Leadership styles refer to the methods and behaviors exhibited by leaders in guiding and directing individuals or teams towards achieving goals. In the video, the speaker emphasizes the importance of three distinct leadership styles: leading with conviction, leading with consensus, and leading with policy. These styles are crucial for effective engineering leadership, especially in navigating the complexities and challenges of modern organizations.

💡Conviction

Leading with conviction involves making decisions and managing execution on critical or ambiguous problems based on a leader's informed perspective. The speaker illustrates this with an example from his experience where a business unit's quality of engineering work was perceived as low. By digging deep, testing hypotheses, and iterating, the team identified a release philosophy issue and adjusted their strategy accordingly.

💡Consensus

Leading with consensus is about building agreement among team members or stakeholders when there's no clear directive from higher-ups. The speaker discusses the importance of this style in situations where executives are not directly involved or when a decision requires collective agreement. An example from the script is the decomposition of services at Uber, where the team made the process easy and incentivized, leading to voluntary adoption without a top-down mandate.

💡Policy

Leading with policy is particularly relevant in fast-growing companies where decisions need to be made consistently across a larger group. The speaker explains that this involves documenting how recurring decisions are made, rolling out policies, and establishing enforcement mechanisms. An example provided is the candidate review process at Stripe, which scaled the hiring decision-making process beyond the CEO by involving a rotating group of leaders and recruiters.

💡Culture Shock Curve

The culture shock curve is a concept that describes the emotional and psychological responses people have when adapting to a new culture or environment. The speaker relates this to the shifts in leadership expectations, suggesting that some leaders experience a form of 'culture shock' as they adjust to new leadership styles and organizational dynamics.

💡Adaptation

Adaptation in the context of the video refers to the process of adjusting to new circumstances or changes, especially in leadership styles and organizational expectations. The speaker suggests that leaders who successfully adapt to new leadership styles are those who can effectively navigate the changes in the business landscape.

💡Engineering Leadership

Engineering leadership is a specialized form of leadership focused on guiding and managing engineering teams. The video emphasizes the unique challenges and responsibilities of engineering leaders, such as making technical decisions, fostering a culture of quality, and scaling processes as the organization grows.

💡Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a scientific method applied to problem-solving where hypotheses are formed, tested, and refined based on evidence. The speaker uses this term to describe the iterative process of identifying and addressing issues within a team or process, as seen in the example of improving software quality by testing and refining hypotheses about the root causes of problems.

💡Enforcement Mechanisms

Enforcement mechanisms are the systems or processes put in place to ensure that policies or decisions are followed and implemented effectively. In the context of the video, the speaker discusses the importance of these mechanisms in making sure that policies, like the candidate review process at Stripe, are not just documented but also actively used and adhered to within the organization.

💡Incentives Alignment

Incentives alignment refers to the process of ensuring that the motivations and goals of individuals or teams are consistent with the overall objectives of the organization. The speaker highlights the importance of aligning incentives in driving consensus and voluntary adoption of changes, such as the service decomposition at Uber.

💡Executive Escalation

Executive escalation is the act of taking decisions or issues to a higher level of management when consensus cannot be reached or when a decision requires the input of senior leadership. The speaker discusses a situation where the executive team was unable to agree on layoffs, leading to individual members escalating the issue to the CEO for resolution.

Highlights

Discussion on three essential leadership styles for effective engineering leadership: leading with conviction, consensus, and policy.

The importance of adapting leadership styles in response to changing business environments and expectations.

Analogy of the culture shock curve to the shifts in leadership expectations over time.

The necessity of leading with conviction in situations where there is ambiguity and stakeholder misalignment.

Leading with policy as a strategy for consistent decision-making across a growing organization.

The role of leading with consensus when executive leadership is not engaged enough to drive decisions.

Example of successfully leading with conviction by addressing quality issues in engineering work.

Case study of failure in leading with conviction due to lack of follow-through and enforcement.

Implementation of a successful policy through candidate review at Stripe, highlighting the importance of enforcement mechanisms.

Lessons from the failure of agile policy implementation at Stripe due to lack of follow-up and training.

Building consensus at Uber through service decomposition without top-down mandates by aligning incentives.

Challenges in achieving consensus during layoffs at Comm due to disagreements on budget cuts.

Advice on identifying and developing the three leadership styles by reflecting on past problem-solving approaches.

Encouragement to step out of leadership comfort zones to develop a broader range of leadership skills.

Final thoughts on the importance of adapting to new leadership styles and the learnability of these styles.

Transcripts

hey folks this is will I'm here to talk

a little bit about leadership styles and

particularly three that I think are

really important to being an effective

engineering leader kind leading with

conviction leading with consensus and

leading with

policy CTO aarta prior of the CTO atom

done a bunch of other things before that

and also written a handful of books most

recently and during Executives primary

worth wor

3 and the first job I had out of college

was you know not not writing software

but actually teaching English in Japan

as part of the the jet program so

Japanese exchange teaching basically

take a bunch of 21y olds um throw them

into the classroom in Japan to teach

English and know English speaking

culture sometimes from New Zealand or

Australia the US the UK you know

whatnot one of the things they taught us

was this culture shock curve and so you

know most of the people that were

teaching in Japan had never never been

outside of the country before just like

short they' certainly never been working

outside the country before and so they

didn't know what to expect and this

helped us understand kind of the the

year we were in for and so there's this

honeymoon period you feel really really

good and then after you know two three

months often people started to feel

really bad they they were upset about

everything that was different around

them and wasn't like where they grew up

wasn't what they were used to and they

were really

frustrated then you know slowly but

Surly kind of dig out he start to adjust

and finally get this adaptation stage

where you're basically as happy as you

were before before you came to new

culture but what I noticed is like a lot

of folks went through this and had a

great experience but some folks did not

ever get out of kind of the bottom of

the curve some people hated it and were

frustrated and just stayed there those

those were those were not happy

campers and I've been thinking a lot

about that culture shop curve as I've

been talking to more and more managers

and you know leading myself over the

past four years I think for for someone

who came up as a manager in that 2012 to

to 2020

period things were feeling pretty good

for a lot of that and part of that was

like the zero interest rate policy that

was putting more and more money into

startups where there was like less and

less friction around like how do we get

enough money hey just just raise more

it's

easy um but also there's like this real

idea that the goal of managers in that

era was to support their team to promote

Career Development how to get your team

EXC excited and happy there's this idea

of kind of the the umbrella manager

and your your job was to protect the

team from the company distracting the

team from doing useful things and that

was kind of what the the era was and hey

you hit 2020 and and things have really

shifted since um first you know there

was like the boom of over hiring then

you know kind of the the layoffs to kind

of reduce expenses back um but even now

things are things are just pretty

different and the expectations of what

we want from leadership the different

leadership styles that we think are

representative of a great leader he are

really shifted and similar to the

culture shock curve that I saw in the

jet program some people have been like

oh man I love the old model had a really

rough time then popped out kind of

figured out that the new way to succeed

some people are still pissed and um you

know convinced that the the last decade

was the right decade the new decade is

just misguided I want to talk a little

bit about um what that means and and how

to how like move forward if someone that

is you work with is is stuck there or

maybe that you in some ways feel a

little bit stuck yourself and I feel

like this new moment is is like bad and

they we used to have like good

leadership and now it's an era of bad

leadership I've heard that a lot

although not everyone wants to kind of

say it say it out

loud so the core hypothesis I have is

that for folks who are stuck in the

bottom of that um most of them are

missing at least one core leadership

style

and I think there's three leadership

styles you need to be pretty effective

as an Eng leader need to lead with

conviction lead with consensus and then

lead with with policy and I'll talk

through all

three also the corollary I think these

things are are learnable not inate and I

think it's easy to convince yourself

that these are innate to who you are you

can't learn that this conviction style

because it feels alien or wrong or

consensus is is slow and dumb you don't

need to learn that but hey I actually

think all these are learn able and as

someone who came in with like none of

these leadership styles have been able

to systematically build them over time

think you can too and so can someone on

your team who he's been struggling with

these so I want to talk a little bit

about these three Styles give some

examples of success and failure that

I've personally run into with all three

Styles and talk about how to develop

them if you or someone you work with is

missing one of the the

three so there are basically three

different styles here right top to

bottom so leading with conviction and

this is when you personally decide to um

make the decisions and and manage

execution on these critical or ambiguous

problems I think for the past decade you

were told that this sort of leadership

is bad leadership but I I actually think

it's it's a necessary skill and I've

been using more of it over the last four

years than in the prior um decade

combined and really important for

decisions when there's just no way to

use the other the other kind of

approaches so deciding to add new

programming languages you're going to

really piss off um you know your depth

tooling team or your infrastructure team

but hey maybe you just did like a new

acquisition who only works in that new

language and there's no way to kind of

get to the bottom of that other than

building um an informed perspective

yourself and making making that

choice then leading with policy

particularly relevant when your company

is growing quickly you're trying to go

from a spot where you can just rely on

one or two people who have all the

context making great decisions to

figuring out how you consistently make

the same decisions across a much larger

population of folks than I need to make

choices think quarterly planning hiring

um promotions these are all cases that

this kind of leading with policy comes

up quite quite a bit and finally leading

with consensus I think as Leaders we we

generally don't want to put our teams in

spots where they have to lead with

consensus but often we um have to look

around and say like hey you report to

the CEO or you report to the CTO and

they're not necessarily going to lead

with conviction on every every problem

they just don't have enough time to even

if you want them to and sometimes that

are going to put you in spots where you

have to make the choice of either not

making progress at all or building

consensus with a group who maybe really

doesn't want to build consensus um and

you have to be able to do that otherwise

you're just you're just dependent on the

the executive to to do it and then

you're not really a leader you are just

an extension of another leader which you

know get pretty far with but again to be

a flexible um powerful leader that can

work in many different situations need

to have this one as well

so leading with conviction um this is

when um there's you know stakeholders

that can't possibly align there's a ton

of ambiguity and people will just get

stuck and the the pattern here is

basically to go really deep on the

context to educate yourself maybe

talking to customers and internal

stakeholders who who know a lot test the

decision widely and test both with like

peers outside of the company tests with

stakeholders internally and also find

ways to actually like try the the

decision and see if it Works um then

communicate what decided and then push

push push through the friction and

anytime you're leading with conviction

there's going to be a reason you're

doing it versus something else and it's

usually that there's going to be

friction so you have to get comfortable

pushing through even when it's it's a

little bit

messy so I think a great example of

leading with conviction is some work

that I've been doing recently with the

team at carda and there was one of our

business units where there's a

perception that the quality of the

engineering work we were doing wasn't

that high

and so there there's all these easy

narratives that come out when quality is

not high it's like okayy the team

doesn't care about the work we're doing

it's like oh the team is sloppy oh the

product managers aren't giving us clear

enough specifications for for the the

work to be done so you start with like

all these different ideas and and

there's really in this case that there

was no way to like figure out what to do

um no no one would have no one even

agreed on the diagnosis of what was

going wrong let alone the solution to it

um and so as we started kind of trying

to understand this perception that the

quality wasn't that high on some of our

work um started digging in one of the

first ones was okay maybe we don't know

how to test our code and so one of the

first hypotheses is like we need to roll

out more uniform testing standards and

and as we kind of explored that idea we

did find that um on the front end our

our testing kind of patterns were were a

little bit like underdeveloped and so we

could do a little bit more work there

but it really didn't explain the general

observation and so so we had to keep

finding like thesis and then like

testing them and then like you know a

lot of those thesis kept falling away

and where we ended up um which is not at

all where I expected to end up was this

observation that um our biggest problem

was was likely our release philosophy

and so we were releasing to um fun

venture capital and private Equity Funds

who are all um extremely heterogeneous

they have almost nothing in common

across the entire population little

pockets do and as we tried to release to

all of them we we would consistently run

into incredibly nuanced errors um so we

had to rethink how we deployed and new

functionality and kind of deploying to a

small cohort validating eror and then

cohort by cohort building up to the

entire population over time and it

wasn't that we were sloppy it wasn't

that our software didn't work it's said

it worked really well for certain

Pockets but not the entirety and the

there was no like uniform consistent

kind of thing and need could solve we

had to like roll pocket by pocket out to

validate expand across relatively

homogeneous groups within the the

broader heterogeneous population and

this has really impacted our our quality

and we would have never gotten to this

conclusion if we had not had the kind of

desire to dig in deep and continuing to

iterate through hypotheses even as some

of them were

wrong and so this is interesting because

I I tried to do something pretty similar

at my my last job at at com and it

didn't go very well and so it's

interesting to compare and contrast so

as I went into CM I realized there was

no agreement about how we should test

functionality this was leading to some

bugs kind of escaping through and I I

had like a clear point of view about

where we did which types of tests um

pulled together a group gave them my my

desired approach tasked them with it

came back a couple months later and

nothing had happened kind of the

different stakeholders of the group

disagreed and so they wrote like a memo

that was extremely um you know lowest

Comm nominator didn't really change

anything

thing and it never went anywhere and so

the you know the the comparison point is

I had a clear thesis I handed it down to

the team but I didn't actually put

myself in that weekly meeting where

we're like driving execution looking for

disagreement finding kind of the blogers

and pushing through and so that success

and and failure in this case really came

down to not just having the big brain

idea but being in the the weekly

meetings where we actually got from big

idea to the details coming together and

I think what I particular in the card

example it's that the big idea was you

know inevitably wrong and it's only got

refined into something good in the

weekly work that that we went through so

second um kind of approach leading with

policy and this is again when you're

trying to get um many different

individuals to make generally the same

type of decision across your

organization um and in the process here

you know look at a recurring decision

that's happening a lot already document

How It's Made um roll out the policy to

folks and then crucially figure out the

enforcement mechanisms that actually

caused the policy to get used rather

than just be a document that kind of

sits

there so I think a success story on this

is candidate review at stripe so when

stripe was small like every hiring

decision was getting made by by Patrick

the CEO then as things scaled a little

bit we we Ste continue to have this

process where the CEO made every

highering decision but eventually just

got to be too much and so we roll that

candidate review for engineering and a

few different functions but within

engineering basically how it worked like

every every week we had three meetings

had a group of like four orifi of

rotating folks including like a senior

leader or CTO and one of our our senior

Recruiters on engineering plus like two

or three other kind of midlevel

engineering leaders as well and we just

talk through each of the packets and

we'd give feedback and we'd kind of

approve thumbs up thumbs down or hey you

need to to provide additional context on

it and we always had some who you know

two two people really who could escalate

decisions when something went a little

bit wrong with the group so if if thing

we got to the seemingly wrong decision

either the senior engineering leader

reporting the CTO or the recruiter or or

or both if they disagreed on a given

topic could escalate up their reporting

chains make sure that we got a little

bit more like oversight into the

decision this wasn't perfect but it

worked it worked pretty

well um then looking at the failure mode

at stripe again um we um want the engine

engering leads um decided to roll it

agile got kind of this mandate from from

the head of engineering at the time um

and you know they wrote up a document

communicated to all of engineering that

we were an agile shop capital

A and and that was it and everyone at

this meeting was like a little bit

confused like hey I guess we can do

Agile and and that was the end of it

there was nothing more there was no

followup there was no review there was

no discussion there was no training and

so this went nowhere and the policy was

actually total totally reasonable but

the the real difference between these

two is like the first one we had like

these enforcement mechanisms where we

actually looked at you know week by week

was it getting implemented had

experienced folks kind of helping Drive

consistency of the approach and we had

escalation mechanisms for when we got it

wrong to to get to the right people to

come in and inspect the the error and

and make sure it got fixed second one

good document but but no follow through

no enforcement mechanism so it didn't

actually anywhere pure pure

Optics then finally like working with

consensus so this is really useful when

there there you know the first example

there's you know you have this um

engaged executive you can actually like

drive a decision sometimes you need to

make a decision but there is no engaged

executive to actually do it what do you

do then and it's it's developing

consensus right and so the The Playbook

here you look for a missing decision

that would really facilitate moving

faster then you try to decide if you can

just not do this work because consensus

is a little bit slow takes a fair amount

of energy to to build you really look

for the decision maker if if you can't

um if you can't convince yourself to to

skip making the decision and then if you

just can't find the decision maker or

they're not engaged can't prioritize the

work then you form a decision- making

group and Lead that through and I you

know don't love this but it's it's been

most of the successful work I've done on

an executive teams has really been

consensus building and leading through

consensus if the CEO had a clear point

of view on a given decision they would

have already told you what they wanted

and driven the consensus that way or

driven conviction to a decision that way

but in this case they they clearly don't

think it's that important relative their

other work so they're not working on it

the only way then for you to make

progress on it is is through consensus

so again couple couple examples I think

one decomposition in Uber is still one

of the things I'm I'm proudest of that

I've worked on and in part I'm really

proud of it because we had no top- down

mandate to to do this There Was You Know

General support for it but hey there

wasn't this perspective that

decomposition was obviously going to be

the path forward and we couldn't force

people to move out of their their

current Services um we could just like

tell them what was there and so instead

of looking at this hey we're going to

force you we looked at like what could

we do to incentivize people to kind of

get aligned with us we made provisioning

Services really really really easy and

then we educated folks like even in

onboarding like each person who came

into Uber and Engineering did a service

provisioning just to see how easy it

was and then we we got people to opt in

and we couldn't force them to but we we

could make it so easy that people came

to us um eventually there was a mandate

from one of the engineering directors um

but again we we didn't force him to do

it and we couldn't force him to do it we

just made it so obvious to him that this

was an easy path forward for him and his

team that he made the decision kind of

drove the the the customers to us and we

were able the change I think one of the

the most important parts of the

company's architecture without any sort

of top down mandate which is which is

pretty

remarkable then then the flip side of

consensus was we we did a a layoff at

Comm and we you know as an executive

team couldn't agree on where the cuts

needed to come from and so the the chief

product officer and I had a perspective

that we should start from looking at

comparable companies looking by function

like GNA SNM R&D and the the growth rate

for our company and what are the Target

spends we should have and then use that

to kind of anchor each of those

functions to the to the right amount of

spend and then cut within those

functions to get there um but you know

some of the functions that were a little

bit outsized in their spend um didn't

didn't like that idea and so we we

weren't actually able to get consensus

and so we ended up with a spot where

people were just kind of invisibly

escalating to the CEO instead of

actually the having the executive team

work together to get the business to to

the right place and so this this was

like a little bit I think a a lost

opportunity where if we could have just

aligned a little bit more on what we

were trying to do I think we could have

come up with a much better series of

decisions instead it was just you know

little bit of a of a

mess and again looking at these two

different differences I think on the

first one we really focused on getting

like the the clean path to align

incentives of the different stakeholders

we we couldn't we couldn't force it but

if we made the incentiv so easy um that

people come along with us the second one

we we just couldn't get the incentives

to work and so ultimately we we weren't

able to drive any sort of align decision

we just kind of got stuck and then had

to wait for the CEO to kind of dig us

out of of the

mess and so looking at these three

different styles um if you want to

figure out if you're using them like the

biggest advice I have to you or to

someone on your team that could work on

this is to just look at um the next five

hard problems you work on and write down

like what style did you actually use to

work on them maybe consensus maybe

working with conviction maybe maybe

policy but just write down like what is

like your your go-to like strategy for

these types of

problems and then you know once a month

um when you take up a problem don't use

your default and and try to use the

style that's actually appropriate to the

problem but if if you're so comfortable

with one pro uh approach you might just

lean on it for everything and the key

thing is pick something uncomfortable

sometimes s you cannot let yourself just

do what's comfortable you'll continue to

be you know stuck in in that kind of

policy and that that leadership style

rather than expanding what what you're

capable of doing over time it would get

a lot better and that's it so really

appreciate yall um listening and thank

you so much