Erika Andersen:
For thousands of years, we have been conditioned to think of change as an aberration, as a dangerous aberration. And that the smartest thing, almost without exception, was to try and figure out how to come back to our previous state.
Jeff Standridge (Intro):
This is Jeff Standridge, and this is the Innovation Junkies Podcast. If you want to drastically improve your business, learn proven growth strategies, and generate sustained results for your organization, you’ve come to the right place. Welcome to the Innovation Junkies Podcast.
Jeff Standridge:
Hey guys, welcome to another episode of the Innovation Junkies Podcast. My name’s Jeff Standridge.
Jeff Amerine:
Hey, this is Jeff Amerine. How you doing?
Jeff Standridge:
Man, I’m good. I’m enjoying the springtime day out here. We’re right now at 10 o’clock in the morning. It’s almost 60 degrees. I’ll take that any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Jeff Amerine:
Well, and you know the thing about March is it’s March Madness is right around the corner and everybody’s getting really excited about their Bracketology and it should be, it should be good fun. It’s always a great month.
Jeff Standridge:
It should be a lot of fun. That’s right. I’m not a huge… I follow college football and NFL football. I follow college basketball locally with our local state university and then obviously with our flagship university, and we’re having a pretty good year this year on both counts, so that’s pretty exciting.
Jeff Amerine:
Absolutely, yeah. Fantastic.
Jeff Standridge:
Well, let’s hop into our episode today, Jeff.
Jeff Amerine:
Who’ve we got today?
Jeff Standridge:
We’ve got a great guest. Erika Andersen is the founding partner of Proteus International and she founded that company in 1990. It’s a coaching and consulting firm that focuses on leader readiness. She’s the author of several books. Her latest accomplishment is her new book, Change from the Inside Out, that’s focused on making leaders and their teams and their respective organizations more change capable. Erika, great to have you with us today. Thank you for joining.
Erika Andersen:
It’s lovely to be here. Thanks for having me.
Jeff Standridge:
Yeah. From the great state of New York, we were just talking about you being from the Northeast.
Jeff Amerine:
Absolutely.
Erika Andersen:
Yeah.
Jeff Amerine:
It’s quite a view you’ve got there from your office. Very beautiful place, obviously.
Erika Andersen:
Yes. For your listeners, I have this wonderful, very panoramic view of the Hudson River outside my office window, which is lovely.
Jeff Amerine:
Very nice, very nice.
Jeff Standridge:
That’s great, that’s great.
Jeff Amerine:
Before we get into the important aspects we’re going to talk about, we always like to start with sort of a random musing. The question of the day is what was your least favorite food as a child? And do you still hate it or do you like it now?
Erika Andersen:
Great question. I’ll start out by saying I’m an omnivore. I will eat almost anything. I’ll try almost anything once. As a child, I absolutely hated liver and it was partly the taste, but it was mostly the texture, you know that kind of grainy texture. And I still hate it. I will not eat liver. It’s one of the few things I’m just like, “I am not going to do that.”
Jeff Amerine:
That’s in my top five too. Jeff, what about you?
Jeff Standridge:
Yeah. So growing up in the South in a very rural community, we had a lot of fried food. And so my food experience as a child was actually pretty good. You can take anything and fry it and make it good. Even liver, which I don’t like, you can fry it and it’s not terrible, but I will tell you, I do like chicken gizzards. I know it’s crazy. There’s a place on the way to Little Rock. It’s a little convenience store, that they make really good chicken gizzards, and so I bought some chicken gizzards not long ago. I was driving to a meeting and I was eating these chicken gizzards. I threw one in my mouth and bit into it and it was a chicken liver that had gotten mixed up in it, and quite a surprise.
But probably when I was a child, my least favorite… I didn’t hate anything, and I don’t know that I hate any kind of food… but my least favorite at that time was meatloaf. I wasn’t a great fan whenever we would have meatloaf at home. And to this day, I love meatloaf. As an adult, I don’t know if it was just a difference in recipe or what. What about you, Jeff?
Jeff Amerine:
Yeah, I’ve actually got a top five least favorite foods from my childhood. I’ll give you just a couple of them. Vienna sausages, for sure, is one that… I’m not sure who thought that was a good way to package anything, but just the whole everything about it. The smell, the look, the taste, not a fan of Vienna sausages. Have not eaten those since I was probably six years old. Liverwurst. I’m not really sure what liverwurst is. Kind of like liver, but I think it’s worse, ergo the name liverwurst. But that for a lunch meat, I couldn’t stand it.
And the third thing, I guess I’ll only do three, is just plain old white bread. I don’t know who invented Wonder Bread or regular old white bread, but it’s this sort of sticky, glue-like stuff, and that’s all I ate as a kid. And I can never figure out why you had to kind of rake it off the roof of your mouth. It’s just awful stuff. You may as well eat paste. So those are probably my top three. And to this day, I still don’t like any of those three, but I will say…
Jeff Standridge:
I think what I’m hearing you say is that if I were to scrape the jelly off of the top of a can of Vienna sausages and spread it onto a piece of white bread, you probably wouldn’t eat that.
Jeff Amerine:
I wouldn’t feed that to my goats.
Erika Andersen:
Worse than liverwurst.
Jeff Standridge:
Worse than liverwurst, that’s right.
Erika Andersen:
Yeah, yeah.
Jeff Amerine:
Awful stuff.
Jeff Standridge:
Let’s hop into our episode today, Erika. Great to have you today. In our Innovation Junkies Podcast, we tend to talk a lot about leadership development. We talk about leadership effectiveness and organizational change, particularly around organizational effectiveness and, of course, innovation. Give us a little bit of the work you do and what you see the most in your practice as a leadership and organizational practitioner.
Erika Andersen:
Okay. Oh, I love that question. Well, let me go back in history a little bit, because I think it’s relevant. The two reasons I started the company 32 years ago. In the eighties, I don’t know if you guys remember this, but the skills that we think of as now being really important, leadership, management, teaming, communication, those were called soft skills. Like they don’t really matter, they’re not real. And I was seeing in the eighties, them becoming more and more important as everything sped up and flattened out. I thought, “Oh, these are it. I want to have a company that really focuses on this.” In fact, our first tagline when we started Proteus in 1990 was, “Proteus: Skills for mastering the future,” because that’s what we assumed these skills were going to be. And it turns out to have been true.
The other thing I wanted to do was be to my clients, what has since come to be called a business partner, and wasn’t really a term of art then. At the time, training and consulting companies, it was like selling widgets. “We’d like three listenings and two delegation,” and I really wanted to… in fact, the mission of our company arising from that is, and has always been, to help our clients clarify and move toward their hope for future. In other words, we wanted to partner with them to help them figure out where are you trying to go and how can we help you get there? And so everything we do, the training, the consulting, the coaching, is all in the service of that. And so that’s what we’ve been doing for the last 32 years.
Jeff Standridge:
Very good. Let’s talk about the model that you use for helping an organization go through intense change. Can you tell us a little about that?
Erika Andersen:
I can. I wonder, would it be okay, kind of contextually, to start… So when I write a book, it’s because I get curious about something, and I want to answer some questions. And the two questions… because we’ve had a change practice for about 10 years, but I observed as we helped organizations through change, two things just kept coming up for me again and again. I wanted to find out why change is so hard for us because it is for most of us. Not everybody, but for most people change is difficult, and I wanted to understand why. And then the other thing I wanted to understand is what actually happens when an individual human being goes through a change? What happens psychologically and emotionally when we make a change? Because I felt like if we got clearer about that, we could be more helpful to people trying to go through change. Does that make sense?
Jeff Amerine:
It does.
Jeff Standridge:
It does, very much so.
Jeff Amerine:
What did you learn through that process? So why? I think those are great questions. What are the insights?
Erika Andersen:
For the first one, why is change hard? I looked at history because I feel like we are who we’ve been and we arise from our history. So I thought about, if you’re a human being who’s living 100 or 200 or 500 years ago, think of that person’s life. Think of someone 200 years ago, living, let’s say, on the east coast of America. That person’s life would have been almost unimaginably stable to us. That person’s life would change very little from beginning to end. They probably grew up where their parents grew up, did the work that their parents or their father did, ate the same food, went to the same church, lived in the same village. Just the amount of change that happened was, to us, unimaginably small, and when a change did come, it was generally a threat and a danger. It was a flood or a famine or a war or a plague. Right?
And so for thousands of years, we have been conditioned to think of change as an aberration, as a dangerous aberration, and that the smartest thing, almost without exception, was to try and figure out how to come back to our previous state as quickly as possible. Come back to the known. So that’s how we are conditioned and wired. Now here we are in this incredibly different time when change just happens every moment. You guys, I think, have read the book. At the beginning of the book, I tell the story about how when I was a little kid and television was a new thing, then 10 years later there was color TV.
So that was the pace of change in the fifties and sixties. You had 10 years to get used to something, and think about even since then, the change that happens, the technological innovation on our phones, that’s the equivalent of black and white to color TV, happens every 45 minutes. So even in the last 50, 60 years, that change has ramped up. So our current life of big and small changes happening every day, every week, every month, is completely different than what human beings have had all throughout our history. So that’s why change is hard. We’re conditioned to think of change as bad and dangerous and to get back to what we knew before as quickly as possible, which no longer serves us. It served us for thousands of years and it no longer serves us.
Jeff Standridge:
Thomas Friedman did a really good job of talking about the pace of change in his book, Thank You for Being Late, where he talks about, the supernova that occurred in the mid-nineties, ’97, I believe it was, or maybe it was ’94. I can’t remember the actual date, but the supernova of change that occurred. He talks about Moore’s Law and the doubling of the speed, power, and efficiency of microprocessors every 14 months or so, and equates that to a 1971 Volkswagen Bug and said, “If the 1971 Volkswagen Bug had subscribed to Moore’s Law or adhered to Moore’s Law, then,” what did he say? “It would go like 300,000 miles an hour, get 3 million miles per gallon, and cost less than a nickel,” or something like that. Just to put it in everyday terms, the amount of change that we’ve gone through as a society.
Erika Andersen:
That’s exactly right. That’s a great example. And that’s exactly what we discovered. We don’t, as human beings, change as fast as the things around us change. Even though we’re in this absolutely high change, continual change environment now, it’s not what we’re wired for, it’s not what we’re conditioned for. So then that led me to the second thing, which is, “Okay, let’s get clear about how we actually do go through a change so that we can help people rewire themselves to become more change capable in this new nonstop change, high change environment.” So that led to what you guys know is what we call the change arc, which is how people go through change.
Jeff Standridge:
So tell us a little more about that change arc. What do people experience when they’re going through change, productively?
Erika Andersen:
This was so fascinating and useful, and I find now that I use it every day. Now that I understand this, I see myself. When confronted with change, it’s like, “Oh my gosh, this is actually what I do.”
So the first thing we noticed is that when a change comes at somebody, they almost always want to know the same three things. We call that first step proposed change. What they want to know is, “What does this mean for me? What actually does this change mean for me? What am I going to have to do differently?” That’s question number one. “Why is it happening?” Because we do, most of us, have a strong preference for the status quo, we want some really good reasons to change. So, why is this happening? And then the third thing we want to know is, “What will it look like when it’s done? What is the post-change feature?”
You know, it was really interesting when I was doing my research for the book. One of the things I found out is that a lot of psychologists now believe that fear of the unknown is our deepest fear. If you go back to what I have understood about history and the known and the known being safe, that makes complete sense. When a change comes at us and we don’t see the future, we’re not helped to understand what it’s going to look like after the change, after the innovation, after the change, it’s terrifying.
So that’s the third question we want answered. What is it going to look like when this change has been made? As we start to gather that information, we already, because of our history, have a kind of negative confirmation bias. Most people ask those questions with this mindset, that the change is going to be difficult, costly, and weird.
And difficult means, “I don’t know how to do this. I’m not going to know how to do this. And other people are going to make it hard for me to do, and there are going to be obstacles, environmentally.” We just… it’s going to be difficult in a lot of ways. We just assume that, because it has been historically. Costly means it’s going to take from me things I value. And that can be simple things like time or money, but more importantly, we assume it will take things from us like identity and reputation and relationships and power. These kinds of more intrinsic things. This change is going to make me feel dumb and destroy all my relationships, and nobody will see me the way they did before. All these kinds of things that we think it’s going to cost us. And weird just means strange, not the way we do things around here. This is not the way I operate. That’s what weird means.
So we started asking these questions and we have this negative mindset. We noticed that when someone becomes willing to make a change, it’s rarely because things change externally. It’s because their mindset shifts and they start to think… the person starts to think that the change could be easy, or at least doable versus difficult, that it could be rewarding, meaning it could give them more than it’s going to take away, and that it could be normal. Normal in this case, to have something be normative, means that I look around and people who are like me do this, so that feels normal and people who I admire and want to emulate are doing this. Which is why it’s so critical for leaders to model a change, because that’s one of the things people are scanning the environment for, “Are you actually doing this?”
And so we noticed that when someone starts to think differently about the change, and people can be helped to think differently, which is what this is all about. When people start to think that a change could be easy, or at least doable, rewarding, and normal, then they begin to be willing to do the new behaviors that the change requires and the change can occur for them.
Jeff Amerine:
Hey folks, this is Jeff Amerine. We want to thank you for tuning in. We sincerely appreciate your time. If you’re enjoying the Innovation Junkies Podcast, please do us a huge favor, click the subscribe button right now, and please leave us a review. It would mean the world to both of us. And don’t forget to share us on social media.
Jeff Amerine:
You know, it makes me think of, sometimes we think about the paradigm of the way consumers adopt new products, and you’ve got the innovators and the early adopters, and then the early majority, and then the majority, and then the laggards. A lot of that seems like probably a propensity towards a willingness to accept anything that’s new, depending upon where you are on that bell curve or that distribution.
Erika Andersen:
That’s exactly right, Jeff, and as we’ve dug down into this, we have discovered that people who are on the early part of that bell curve, they’ve figured out how to make that mindset shift more quickly. They’ve figured out how to manage their self-talk so that they, early in a change, start thinking to themselves, “Well, how can we make this work? How can we make it easier? Huh? I wonder what the rewards of this are going to be?” they start managing their own self-talk toward that more hopeful mindset and people who are at the other end of the bell curve, they get really stuck and committed to that negative mindset. “This is going to be so hard and it will always be difficult. And it will always take things away from me that are highly important to me. And it’s always going to be weird. This is just not the way we do things.” It’s fascinating to watch.
Jeff Standridge:
How do we help? How do we help people within organizations to challenge that self-talk and to challenge and open up and be more adaptable to change? How do you do that in your work today?
Erika Andersen:
Well, I absolutely love that question. The core of that is what… the first question you guys asked me is “What’s the model?” We have this five-step change model, which we’ve used for a long time, and have been able to make even more effective now that we have a clear understanding of this change arc. How I would summarize that model is it’s a way to move an organization through a change, both practically and on this human, emotional side. So it’s how can you do the practical, nuts and bolts kind of project management things you need to do to make a change happen well, while at the same time cascading as many people as possible through that mindset shift so that the change actually gets adopted. Because you know that… there’s this statistic from McKinsey that 70% of organizational transformation efforts fail, 70%, which any of us who work in change, this is not an unbelievable statistic.
And then further what they found is the two main reasons for that are, and this goes right back to the change arc, lack of employee buy-in and lack of management support. And that just translates to me as people are not going through their change arc, right?
To your question, we have this five-step model and it really supports more and more people as the change is unfolded, cascading through the change arc, but I want to help your listeners especially, who are innovators. There are what we’ve come to call change levers. My business partner, Jeff, figured these out a number of years ago. Levers in the sense of force multipliers. There are things that you can think about as you try to help people through their change arc.
The first one is increased understanding. One of the things that happens a lot in organizational change is just not enough information. People just don’t get enough information about, “What does this mean? Why is it happening? What will the future look like?” All those questions that they want answered. They don’t get the answers. It’s just like, “We’re doing this, get with the program, good luck.” You know?
So the more you help people understand, “What is this change? What does it mean for you? Why is it happening? What’s our vision for it? What will look like when it’s done? How are we going to help you through it?” Anything you can do to increase people’s understanding about the change is going to be really helpful to them in moving through their change, so that’s thing one.
The second change lever is clarify and reinforce priorities. The reason this is important is often in a big change, people assume that everything is changing. It’s all up for grabs, everything is changing, nothing’s going to be the same. Ah! Right? And so if you can tell people what their priorities are actually going to be during the change, it’s hugely reassuring because usually, even in a big change, the core priorities of your job are probably not going to change that much. Let’s say you’re a salesperson and your company is getting onto a new CRM, going from Salesforce to something else. You think, “Oh my gosh, everything’s going to be different.” But actually if your manager goes, “No, your sales quotas are exactly the same. You’re going to have the same clients and you’re still responsible for making them happy. It’s just how you note your interactions with them and what we keep track of. That’s going to change. That’s all that’s going to change.” That’s really helpful for people, so that’s the second change lever.
The third one we call give control. And the reason this is important is because in organizational change especially, people tend to feel kind of victimized. It’s coming at you and you don’t have a lot of control over it. So to whatever extent you can give people choices during a change, it really helps them feel more comfortable, more grounded, and more engaged. To give them control over, for instance, when they do something, how they do something, how they communicate something, to have them have a voice in the granular aspects of the change and how it’s going to happen, whatever you can do to give people a voice, to give them some choices and control, that’s hugely helpful, and it usually improves the change as well. Because when you give people on the ground a say in how things happen, often you find out things that are important in order to make the change as good as it can be and as painful and useful as it can be. Does that make sense?
Jeff Standridge:
It does. Makes a ton of sense.
Erika Andersen:
Okay. And then the last change lever is give support. Usually what this means at the beginning of a change is a lot of listening, because what too often happens in organizations is when people express their concerns, when people talk about how they think the change is going to be difficult, costly, and weird, what happens is they get shut down. They get dismissed or reassured like, “No, no, no, no, it’s going to be okay.” You can support people by just listening through their concerns. At the beginning of a change, if you just hear them out. “So you’re worried about not knowing how to do this.” “Yes.” “Okay. So you’re worried that you’re no longer going to be working with quality control and you really enjoy those relationships. That’s problematic for you.” Just listen, listen, listen.
And then what happens is when people feel heard, then they are ready for the more practical kinds of support you can give. Then you can say, “Okay, well, so we have a training that we’re going to do and we have a roadmap for this new process and we’ll walk you through it.” If you listen first, then people are ready for the more practical, tangible kinds of support that you can give them to help them through the change.
Jeff Amerine:
We’ve got a follow-up question for you. That process is just so instructive, and I’m sitting here thinking of all the different corporate M&A, and the different change management things I’ve been through.
In large corporations, an observation is that sometimes you almost feel like there’s an epigenetic, inherited bias towards an inertia or status quo that is so difficult. It’s like it’s calcified, it’s in concrete. It’s so hard to break free in a large organization where people have been comfortable, maybe the large organization has been successful. How do you think about culture or changing the culture of an organization at the outset so that there at least is going to be a receptivity to a good change process? What are your thoughts about that?
Erika Andersen:
Man, that’s a great question. I think it would be useful for me to walk pretty quickly through the five steps of the model because it incorporates some of that and we run into that lot, as you might imagine.
Okay. So the first step of the model, and usually the way a change works is at the beginning, there’s a small group of usually relatively senior people in the organization thinking about a change. For instance, an example I use in the book is a manufacturing company that decides that it wants to change the production process for its core product. And let’s say that the first person who’s thinking about that is let’s say the woman who’s the head of production, so she’s the senior person who reports to the CEO. She starts thinking about it, then she brings it to the senior team.
The first step in the model is this small, what we call the change initiation group, is thinking about it. In the first step they think about what’s the change and why is it needed? And, as you notice, those are the first two things that people want to know, so they’re thinking about this kind of on behalf of the organization. Often, I’m sure you guys have experienced this, organizations kind of roll into a change without ever having gotten clear about these first two things. So, what is the change? Surface and frame it up. What exactly are we talking about changing in the organization and why?
And one good way to figure out why, do a risk/reward. Okay, what are the risks of changing? What are the risks of not changing? What are the rewards of changing? Once you sort that out, first of all, you’ll get clearer about all the implications of the change, but also then you’ll be able to make the elevator pitch, the why are we doing this? And you’ll be able to ground it in the real risks and rewards of doing it that will be meaningful to people. That’s step one.
And then again, still probably this small group, sometimes they’re bringing a few other people into the tent, but it’s still probably this small group. In step two, they focus on envisioning the future. What will the future be after the change? They scope the change, they create a vision for the change, and they also create measures of success. They create both this aspirational, “What will it look like when we’re done?” And then, “How will we know if it’s actually successful? How are we going to measure the success of this change?” Which is another thing that, as you know, often doesn’t happen in organizations.
Jeff Amerine:
Uh-huh.
Jeff Standridge:
Yeah.
Erika Andersen:
So then you’re clear about the core of it. What’s the change? Why is it needed? What will it look like? Both aspirationally and practically when it’s done. Okay.
Then step three is when you start bringing other people into the tent. You figure out, usually in an organization, it’s not the very senior leaders who are going to be the change team. They nominate, they create a change team, a small group of people who are going to figure out exactly what the change is and then drive and manage it through the organization. In that step three, you create the change team and you also identify any other key stakeholders, people who haven’t been in this initial group and aren’t on the change team, but who could still get in the way of the change and whose support you really need in order to make the change, right?
And that’s part of what you’re saying. There may be some key people, I’m just making this up, but let’s say this process of changing the production approach to the core product, there might be… for instance, if it’s a unionized company, the head union steward might be a real blocker if he or she isn’t supportive. So that person is a stakeholder and you have to get them at least reasonably supportive by of it, work them through their change arc.
Okay. Once you’ve got these people on board, then you actually plan the change. What are we actually going to do? And what does it mean in terms of the deliverables practically, in terms of process, systems, structure, new skills, new approaches, but also to your point, what does it mean culturally? What are we going to have to do to shift our culture, to make it open to this change? It’s very important to think about that as part of the plan. That’s step three.
And then step four. This is where you really get into culture. Step four, we call lead the transition. The first thing you do is you figure out who’s going to be most affected by the change. What groups are going to be most affected by the change? In this production process example, the people most affected are going to be the people on the line, the people who are also surrounding the line, like people who repair it and keep it up to speed, and probably also the union people and the HR people. Those are going to be the people most affected by this change.
Once you figure that out, then you figure out what’s going to be ending and beginning for those people, so you can use the change levers most effectively to help them through their change arc. You create what we’ve come to call transition plan. There’s the actual change plan. Here are the systems and processes and structures that are going to have to change. And then there’s the transition plan, which is how do we help people through their mental arc, through their mindset shift, as you’re making this change, and then you implement them together.
And that in my experience, almost never happens. Some companies do change all together. Some companies do change pretty well on the practical level, but almost no companies really think about how do we help people through this change emotionally and psychologically. And that I think is the absolute key to success.
So then the fifth step is keep the change going because often, even when people do change well, then they are like, “We’re done. Goodbye.” But you have to really keep it going to make sure that it gets adopted. That’s when you really look to the measures of success, is it happening? And almost always, you guys know when you do any kind of a change or innovation, there are almost always unintended consequences. Unless you keep your eye on the ball, you won’t see those, right? So if you are watching and noting whether or not… Oh, I’ll give you the example of this production process.
The example I use in the book is they made these changes to the production process, and part of the change was to automate some of the process. So they did the automation and it seemed to work well, but they weren’t getting… One of their measures of success was improvements in cycle time, and they weren’t getting the improvement that they had hoped to.
So they looked and what they realized is that the process was speeding up during the automated part, but then it would slow back down when it came back to the people part, so they had to make a secondary change. What they did, in fact, was double the line after the automated part. So it would come out of the automated part of the line and then there would be two people because the automation part made it twice fast, so they had to have a double line afterwards not to slow it down again. They made that secondary change just as carefully as they had made the first one. Think, “How is this going to affect people? How do we need to help them through it? How can we give them choice in them? Okay.” And so they did that second change well, but unless you’re noticing and keeping your eye on the change, you’re not going to be aware of that and you’re not going to make those unintended changes.
And that’s often where change falls apart, because people make a change and walk away and then there’s problems and they’re not addressed, and then it kind of goes back to the way it was before, right?
Jeff Standridge:
Yeah, that’s right. We like to talk about, “How do they make it stick?” Right? How do they make it stick?
Erika Andersen:
Exactly. And that’s what step five is in our model. How do you make it stick? That’s exactly right.
Jeff Standridge:
So you’re sharing with us insights from your latest book called, Change from the Inside Out. Where can our listeners and viewers pick up a copy of that?
Erika Andersen:
Amazon or online, wherever books are sold, and it’s available in hard copy and Kindle, ebook, and audiobook. There’s an audiobook as well. Any of those.
Jeff Standridge:
Fantastic. We’re talking with Erika Andersen. She is the founding partner of Proteus International and aids in the practice of organizational transformation and leadership readiness to change. Erika, it’s been a pleasure are talking with you today. I’m fascinated by your work. And I could see us in, if you’re willing, possibly engaging in a further conversation down the road at some point.
Erika Andersen:
Love to. You guys ask great questions and the work you’re doing is so important, so that would be wonderful. I’d love it.
Jeff Amerine:
Thanks so much for coming on.
Jeff Standridge:
Very good. Absolutely. Absolutely. This has been another episode of the Innovation Junkies Podcast. Thank you for joining.
Jeff Amerine:
Hey folks. This is Jeff Amerine. We want to thank you for tuning in. We sincerely appreciate your time. If you’re enjoying the Innovation Junkies Podcast, please do us a huge favor. Click the subscribe button right now. Please leave us a review. It would mean the world to both of us. And don’t forget to share us on social media.