Upgrade Your Workday with Behavioral Science
EEric Singler: Hi, and welcome to a new episode of B.E. Good!, brought to you by BVA Nudge Unit, a global consultancy specializing in the application of behavioral science for successful behavior change.
Every month we get to speak with a leader in the field of behavioral science in order to get to know more about them, their work, and its application to emerging issues. My name is Eric Singler, founder of the BVA Nudge Unit, and with me is my colleague Suzanne Kirkendall from BVA Nudge Unit US.
SSuzanne Kirkendall: Hi Eric, it's great to be joining you and I'm truly honored to be introducing our guest today.
Today we will be speaking with Caroline Webb. Caroline began her career as a research fellow at the Levy Economics Institute and working on public policy at the Bank of England.
In 2000, Caroline joined McKinsey and Company where she was made a partner in 2008. Her work centered on organizational change and leadership development, including executive coaching.
In 2012, Caroline founded Sevenshift, a coaching and consulting firm specializing in increasing workplace performance and wellbeing through the application of insights from behavioral science. She remains an external senior advisor to McKinsey.
Caroline is also the author of the bestselling book, 'How to Have a Good Day: Harness the power of behavioral science to transform your working life', which has been published in over 60 countries and in 14 languages.
E Congrats Caroline.
CCaroline Webb: Thank you.
E I am very happy to get in touch with you again after we first met in person some years ago in Paris when you launched the French version of your book 'How to Have a Good Day'. This book is really amazing. The reading has been very inspirational for me, and when I decided to write my third book 'Nudge Management', it was one of the most useful resources I have to say, along with books from Dan Ariely, Adam Grant, Amy Edmonson, Laszlo Bock, and I would say “the big guys,” but yours also is really fantastic. I am more than happy and honored to have the opportunity to have another in-depth conversation with you. Welcome, Caroline.
C Thank you. It's wonderful to be here.
S Fantastic. Caroline, could we start by coming back to your background and your early career? Could you tell us more about how, and when you discovered the field of behavioral science?
C Well, behavioral science is a living, growing, emerging, and moving field. I'm sure all of us can pick a number of different dates. A perfectly defensible place to start would be 1987 when I took my first economics class. I was studying economics for the first time and I was really lucky; I didn't realize how lucky I was at the time to have an economics teacher that took a really broad approach to the discipline and thought about economics as a way of organizing and challenging the way that we thought about human potential and performance. And so the human being was very much in the center of this, and then how that would roll up to how a system would behave at a more aggregate level. And it got me completely hooked. I'd planned to be an astrophysicist before I took this class. That was a massive redirect to thinking about human behavior.
And then I worked as an economist for quite a long time and realized that mainstream economics actually didn't have that much of the behavioral spice, that understanding of the human being at the heart of what we were supposed to be looking at.
whether it was an aspect of game theory that had some sense that you might make a mistake, like trembling hand equilibrium, or aspects of welfare economics that show that your preferences might not be logical from a sort of purely transitive perspective, to use this sort of technical word.
And then reading pieces by economists like Janet Yellen, who of course, we all know; she was doing work on labor economics and she was talking about things like motivation. And I remember it being so unusual in the field of economics back then. I would underline and triple underline these signs, these glimmers of recognition of the human being.
I think that I actually had a few years where I'd felt pretty frustrated actually by what was happening in mainstream economics and then went into consulting because I thought that was a way to get back to thinking about human behavior, and then use behavioral science very much as the foundation for my practice, as a consultant and as a coach.
I could pick just about any date along that spectrum, but 1987 is probably the best one.
S Yes. It's a journey, not a destination. It sounds like you've had a few influential factors there. You've got your economics professor, Janet Yellen. Are there any other researchers or mentors that have had a really strong influence on you throughout this behavioral science journey?
C Well, yes. So many, and many of them you're interviewing for this wonderful podcast. I could name any one of your guests actually. I think certainly I would mention the power couple of Danny Kahneman and his late wife Anne Treisman. I think many people know Kahneman's work on the two system brain and the implications for decision making and judgment. But for me, I found so much richness in other aspects of his work, for example, on hedonic psychology.
If I think about what actually guides my day, the things that I do and how I live my life, then the work that he's done on the difference between experiencing and remembering happiness has been enormously influential.
I always make sure to end the day by doing a gratitude exercise that looks back on the good things of the day, to do it at the end of the day, given the peak-end rule. This is something that's very present in my life.
...and trying to understand the rules around that so that we can experience the world both as it is, as far as possible, but also as we want it to be. That is so much a theme in much of the work that I do.
E Caroline, could you tell us more about why one day, you decided to write the book 'How to Have a Good Day'?
C There are other people I might've mentioned as heroes and sources of inspiration. People like Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, who showed that it was possible to actually drive really good policy choices as a result of the great research that was going on in laboratories around the world.
I think what Dan Ariely did in writing 'Predictably Irrational', what Jon Haidt did in writing 'The Happiness Hypothesis' ; all of these books helped me see there was a real opportunity to take amazing decades of research that weren’t yet really properly making the leap into an actual application and in the way that people chose to live their lives. That might've stayed as 'oh, those books are great, I'm glad that they exist', except that in my client work, which I was doing with leaders and managers at many different organizations, they would sometimes ask me at the end of the workshop, ‘have you got a book that you could recommend?’ And I would mention the books that I've just said were so influential for me.
Then I thought, okay, well maybe there's actually a need. It's very hard to give so many years to a project without feeling that there might actually be someone who wants to read it. Those clients were very generous to make me feel like there was a market for it.
E Caroline, how would you define a good day at work?
C Well, that's a fair question given that I've written so much about having a good day. In my organizational change work with organizations around the world, in the public, private, social sectors, I always start my diagnostic process with them by doing a series of interviews where I'd ask people, ‘what is a good day for you? What is a bad day and how could you get more good days?’ And sometimes my colleagues were a bit freaked out by the lack of a more detailed interview guide, but I tended to find that that was really all you needed. And the answers that came out were surprisingly consistent across cultures, and countries.
And of course, there are lots of things that can get in the way of that, but do you feel good about where you’re spending time.
Whether it's the quality of your thinking, the quality of your interactions, the quality of the impact that you have.
And really it's those three questions that people would always talk about in whatever context. And so that's what I decided to build the book around.
ETo be highly productive, I think is something which is a key objective at work. And you mentioned there are a lot of traps from multitasking to distraction, decision fatigue, procrastination. How could we avoid all of these straps and be productive at work?
C Going back to what I was just saying, the first big area of satisfaction that people feel about a good day is usually that feeling that they've spent time on things that really matter.
All of the things you mentioned can absolutely get in the way. Although they sound like different phenomena, they're all about failing to work with the way that our brains work. They're failing to work with the deliberate system in our brain, System 2. They're failing to recognize the shortcomings, the limitations of this gloriously complex piece of software that we have in our heads. And that's really what I try to get people to do is to understand a little bit what are the shortcomings and to work with that.
We know that the deliberate system is not a system that can do two things at once that require conscious attention. If the tasks do not require conscious attention, then you're okay. They can run in parallel. But if two tasks require conscious attention, there's a single attentional bottleneck in the brain and you encounter switching costs. You know that because you know this literature, but a lot of executives get to the end of the day and wonder why they're so frazzled and why they're never feeling like they're getting on top of their workload. And then to talk to them about the fact that...
...and to talk to them about the fact that there might be a prize of getting 30% of their time back, of course it's never quite so neat and clean, but just the prize of getting any time back is a precious thing.
Another restriction that our deliberate system faces is that it gets tired very easily and quickly and that after a certain point-- although there's been some back and forth in the research on this, there is a deterioration in decision quality.
If you talk to people about the fact that they should take more breaks, they roll their eyes at you and they say, well, that sounds very soft and nice to have. If you say, ‘you know that time that you go for a walk and then you come back and you look at the piece of work you are wrestling with and you suddenly see the answer?’ and they say, ‘oh yes!.’ And I say to them, well, that's not random, there's a reason why that happens.
So getting them to think about downtime for the brain being as important to performance as uptime, is often a huge area of productivity gains. It's sort of counterintuitive because they think they're working less, but they're not. They're just using their time differently.
Generally, whatever you can do to make a task seem easier is going to obviously help with getting it done. We struggle with abstraction, we struggle with conceiving of a future benefit that feels like it's not concrete and present.
So I do quite a lot with people to help them understand that the more concrete, the more specific, the more manageable they can make the first step feel, the more that they can visualize the benefit which seems so abstract and pull it into the present as much as possible, to see whether they can feel like they're capturing some of the benefit now, perhaps by socializing and telling people that they're going to do this task, all of these things make much more concrete and real the benefit of getting the thing done while reducing the apparent costs of getting the thing done. We're back to the cost-benefit analysis that obviously I'm very comfortable with as an economist.
And if you start to help people understand that procrastination is not only common, but actually very natural and that this is the way to tip the balance, then they can see not only how to make a dent in some of their hardest to-dos, the ones that don't shift at the bottom of their to-do list, but also they can figure how to better motivate other people, how to break things down and make things feel very real and present so that they can help their teammates make progress when they're getting stuck.
E Okay great, thank you. In the workplace… I took notes! You can see that not only do I have the book, but I have underlined a lot of things.
C Oh yeah, that’s great. Eric is showing me my book, which has lots of underlining. Oh my gosh, that’s the nicest possible thing.
E I also have the French version, to be sure I have well understood the initial English version.
C That’s wonderful
E Another important question: in the workplace, we need, obviously, to make a lot of decisions and to be at our best to make the right decision. It seems, again, it is very challenging and not so natural, we are under the influence of a lot of cognitive bias. It was funny that you mentioned the Einstellung effect for example, and we are also shaped by our emotion, others, our energy level, or the context within which we make decisions. Could you again give us some advice and tell us more about how to make the right decision in the workplace?
C Well, I think there were two big areas really that I work on to help people make good decisions - and help myself. Let’s be clear, I'm not one of those people who give advice that I don't take myself. I do try to walk the talk.
Obviously a lot of what we're talking about boils down to what economists might once have called rationality, what we ourselves call simply making good decisions under constraints. And we're talking about constraints that involve selective perception and the fact that we cannot see and hear everything around us very easily. We cannot then evaluate all of those factors as cleanly and clearly as we think we can.
All of those biases, that incredibly long list that you can find on Wikipedia, they all boil down to recognizing some humility in yourself, that you have some blind spots and that anything you can do to build a little crosscheck routine into your daily approach to decision making will help.
And I don't mean small decisions like going to lunch, because actually the shortcuts that our automatic system takes to help us choose lunches, that's very welcome. It's great that we don't spend three hours building a spreadsheet on which sandwich we should have. But I'm talking about the big decisions in our organizations.
When I talk about crosscheck routines, I'm agnostic across which bias they're fixing because we're all subject to a ton of biases at any given time. The crosscheck routine that works for one particular person isn't going to be the one that works for everybody else. But I mean things like always asking yourself, what am I missing? That's the lightest end of the spectrum.
I actually have a CEO that I coach who is a very smart guy and he will often get to what feels like a good answer very quickly, quicker than anybody else in the room. And one of the things that we've worked on over the last few years is recognizing that, however smart and fast that answer comes, it doesn't mean that it's right. He's not likely to be a hundred percent wrong, but it means his rapidity, his intellectual fluidity, means that actually he may be more likely to miss factors that are worth slowing down and taking in. So he's developed a phrase which is: “what am I missing?” He'll use that with his teams very effectively to say “what are we missing? What am I missing?” But he'll take it on himself.
And then sometimes at the other end of the spectrum, I've taught an executive team at a bank to do the premortem, the future retrospective. You say, ‘okay, it's a year from now. We massively screwed up. What a shame, what a waste of effort. What was it that we missed?’
And I remember when I was doing it with this team, it was impressive. Within five minutes, they realized that a big initiative that they were driving across the organization was going to fail probably because there was no bottom-up engagement. It's an issue that often arises when leaders have an amazing idea and they think, yes, let's push it down the organization.
So they got to really quite a lot of color and depth very quickly on what people further down the organization were going to say. And that was one of the fastest pivots that I have ever seen a team make.
I think that it's possible to weave these things into your daily practice, but they take a bit of effort. You'll find behavioral scientists feel very differently across the spectrum: is this possible or is this just so automatic and there's no way we can?
And of course, the more that you can socialize it and build it into your team settings and make it a habit, and be explicit about the reason that you're making it a habit, the better. There are many other techniques that people can use, like the black hat and the devil's advocate. Simply, frankly, I'll tell you the one that I use most often.
So you put that condition on it so it frees people's ability to come forward with something critical. If people are skewing negative, then you do it the other way round: ‘before we throw this out completely, can I just hear from everybody, what would be one thing you think is worth saving from this?’ And then by the time you've gone around the room, you're often in a different place.
Anyway, that's being aware of the blind spots and developing a little process. I do think there's a whole other set of topics that I work on in the decision-making field that is a bit less present in the behavioral science community, which is about what happens when someone's brain is on the defensive. There's really solid evidence on this that has built up over decades. The language has changed and adapted over time as the imaging has gotten more refined, but we know that when someone is feeling unpleasantly stressed, meaning something that they can't control, not the pleasant kind of stress that can come from a certain sense of anticipation. When it's negative stress, we can see that there's less activity in the brain's prefrontal cortex. We can see that as there’s a powering up of a defensive response of varying levels of intensity, there is a reorientation of resources within the brain away from more complex reasoning and more thoughtful self-control and forward-thinking.
While that's happening, everything that we already said, we know about the brain's blind spots is getting worse, and you're much more likely to get knee jerk reactions and 'oh, no' moments where people look back later and say, 'Oh, no, that was terrible, why did I say that?'
So I do find that actually a lot of the work that I do is not just on little team routines to spot blind spots, but it's actually on stress management and noticing when your brain is on the defensive and recognizing those signals early, recognizing that you are not going to be thinking as clearly as you might, learning how to pause, sometimes even call that out and say, 'you know what? I realize I'm babbling,' or you know what? I realize I'm frowning', or 'let's just take a step back and talk about this in a little bit more depth, if you don't mind'. Just anything that gives you that moment of pause, and to say, ‘what is it that we really want to do here? What's the most important thing?’ and to refocus so that people can think more clearly again.
And so I think that the crosscheck routines is good on its own, but actually, unless you pair it with an ability to recognize stress, then you're only going to get so far because it's often at moments of high stress when you need to be really maximally on your game as a decision-maker.
S Caroline, thinking more globally about behavioral science in the workplace, from your point of view, how could behavioral science learnings be applied by organizations and by the private sector, and for what types of questions or challenges do you think it's best suited?
C I would say this, wouldn't I, but surely everything.
I think the more specific answer is that when we think about the history of applied behavioral science in the last decade or so, there was definitely a focus on the policy world, which is where I come from, so obviously that was very dear to my heart, and also marketing and consumer insights. In effect, how do you get other people to do things? Whether it's things they should do or things you'd like them to do.
And I feel there's a huge area of application that has been more sparsely populated in the past, and I hope that will shift in the future, which is to focus on performance and productivity and wellbeing, and to say, well, actually there's an enormous amount of research in behavioral neuroscience, behavioral psychology, behavioral economics that can be applied to individual and team performance that is not just about influencing other people. And it's not just about actually the quality of decision making, but going much broader into how do you help people perform at their best?
I think that's where I've seen the biggest shift in the last couple of years. Naturally, I would, because of course, that's the space that I'm in, that's the specific space that I'm in. So I'm sure you get people talking about their own-- we project our own situations into the answers that we give you. But I do think that that is shifting and I do feel that it has to because we're heading into-- Do you remember the fourth industrial revolution that we talked about before COVID and before-- The thing that we most worried about was the robots. It's really hard to imagine that now.
But I hope that we'll build societies that are more cohesive and healthier in the coming couple of years. On the other side, we will still have the challenge of the next phase of automation to deal with. So, I think that the more that leaders can understand how to bring the human strengths out of their human workforce, the more likely human beings are to have a job to do that sits alongside the robots, because if AI is automating everything that is repeatable and predictable, what's left to us are areas that are rich in empathy and inspiration and wisdom and creativity, and there's research on what it takes to encourage all of those, and very little of that is making its way into the management curriculum at the moment. So that's where I see the biggest opportunity going forward.
S Very interesting. To your point about either influencing others or improving employee wellbeing, do you have in mind some companies that you think are really great at applying behavioral science to do either of those things?
C Organizations are like marriages. You never know what it's like being inside them until you're inside them. So I'm always very careful about picking out specific companies. But I tell you what I will say is that I have seen Chief Learning Officers in the last couple of years really start to get interested in that idea of equipping their managers with more basic behavioral science. I do think that that has shifted and I've been doing some work recently with, I don't know whether I can mention the name; an incredibly large consumer goods company that is global.
I actually worked with them for the first time about 20 years ago when I was helping them think about leadership development for the first time. They were so thoughtful in all the things that we've talked about: the importance of equipping people with an understanding of what happens to someone's brain under threat, an understanding of therefore what you might do to create a positive working environment that allows people to do their best quality thinking while raising challenges and saying, ‘hang on, we haven't thought of this or that.’
They've been really striking-- yes, they have gotten my book, it's true. But they've been really striking in thinking about how to use behavioral science and weave it in in plain language into all of the fabric of their HR and their leadership development programs. And that's what I'd like to see more broadly because it doesn't have to be complex to make a difference.
I've worked on Rikers Island and talked about the way that the brain responds under stress and talked about what that means for how people handle conflict. I've worked with prison officers there and many of the people that I was working with did not have anything more than a high school education, and they were more than capable of playing back to me what we've been discussing in terms of quite complex neuroscientific ideas.
So I've seen these ideas be quite transformative in a very large range of settings. That gives me confidence that this is the stuff that everybody could learn.
S Absolutely. So to that point about infusing behavioral science thinking and learning within organizations more broadly, what advice would you give to businesses and their practitioners to do that?
C Well, I would start with a few simple ideas that are not super complicated. So I would start with the idea that your deliberate system needs to have the right conditions in order to perform well. So that fits very neatly into discussions that people were having about performance. And I would teach them about what happens to the brain in defensive mode. And then use that as a jumping-off point to then talk about, well, what does that mean for how you might run your teams?
It's very easy for me to come and say, ‘oh, you should do that, and you should do this and you should do that,’ but I think actually one of the things we know from our own research in this field is that people feel much more attached to things that they've worked out for themselves.
If you remember the classic Ellen Langer lottery ticket study, where people are much more attached to a lottery ticket that they've written the number on themselves, I've found time and again that the more you can lay out some principles and then say, ‘well, what do you think this might mean for how you would run your team, how you would run your organization?’, there's more ownership. And of course, I can be there as a coach, or a behavioral scientist can be there as an advisor. But once you've got the basic ideas in place, people can quite readily see how this might translate into real-life changes in their teams and their organizations.
And I do think just keeping people focused on the benefits that this is not just about being nice, this is about creating an organization, an environment, a culture where everybody wants to work and everybody wants to do their best work.
E I would like to ask you something which is a key topic for me. If you had to convince a leader to apply behavioral science principles in his or her organization, what would be the key benefits that you would highlight?
C I think this goes back to what I was just saying. To add to that, a little trick that I have used when I'm trying to get people to perhaps think about behavioral issues in a way that they haven't before is everybody knows the difference between a good day and a bad day in themselves. If you get them to say, okay, well, how productive and how brilliant are you on your best day? And then on your worst day, I mean, obviously we're just putting numbers on this, but it's still a useful thought exercise to say, what percentage brilliant or productive are you on your worst day? And then to say, okay, well, we know that there are predictable factors that will increase your level of brilliance and productivity, and by the way also your sense of wellbeing. If you could make use of that research to have a few of your bad days become good days, you can actually quantify the benefits.
So you get them to work out what they feel the difference is between them at their best and them at their worst, and then just apply a little bit—‘what if 10% of your days were better?’
That often works quite well with people who are quite quantitatively minded, who might be disinclined to think about soft stuff either for themselves or for their colleagues.
E Thanks. Another different but important question; we are at the beginning of June 2020. There is a huge issue on everyone's mind, which is Coronavirus. There is a new challenge with working from home or managing a team that is working from home. What is your perspective regarding the objective of having a good day working at home as an employee and as a manager?
C Well, I think a lot about the fundamental attribution error, which I'm sure everybody listening will know, but just to recap, that's where if we don't perform at our best, we know that that's attributable to bad circumstances. We probably didn't sleep perfectly or we've maybe just had a bad family situation arise in the morning or whatever. But if you, like Suzanne, turn up and you're not firing on all cylinders, I attribute that to you being terrible people. I might not say that out loud, but there's a little bit of me that just assumes that, 'Oh, they're just not up to it'. That's the attribution error is that we attribute bad behavior to bad character instead of bad circumstances.
I think right now, with the situation that we've been going through in the last couple of months, I think I see people being a little kinder, a little bit more generous to each other and understanding the way that people's personal lives and personal constraints might be acting on their ability to perform professionally.
In a way, we've got more information because we can see people in their home settings. In a way we've got less information because we're not really physically with them. And so we don't necessarily get some of the information that you would get from being physically present, but you get quite a lot of information.
And so I think one of the themes that has been coming up a lot more for me in a good way has been compassion - and to say, okay, so if this person isn't quite doing what I would hope, to be generous in assuming that they are a good person and that there may be some circumstances beyond their control, to be curious about what might be putting their brain on the defensive, what might be threatening a sense of self-worth or their sense of social standing. Is it that they feel out of their depth and so there's a threat to competence? Is it that they feel they've got no control over the situation that they're in right now, so they're challenged on the dimension of autonomy? Frankly, for many of us right now, we're dealing with daily challenges to our feelings of autonomy and competence, which put us slightly on the defensive almost all the time. And so just getting curious about that and then being appreciative, recognizing that one of the surest ways that we can take someone off the defensive is to be genuinely appreciative of something, some aspect of what they've done or who they are.
And people sometimes say, ‘well, you can't just make stuff up,’ and then I say, ‘well, you don't have to make stuff up in order to say something nice to someone.’ There's usually something you can say to appreciate someone's effort, someone's willingness to try. Even if you don't love the outcome, you can say, ‘I really appreciate the depth in which you've gone to thinking about this’. And I think that obviously is something which is good at all times, but when we are losing a part of ourselves, when we're working from home right now, for many of us, it feels that we're a little bit cut off and that we're a little on the back foot the whole time.
I think that is something that's been more important the last couple of months, and I'm hoping that that will continue to be very present, that feeling of active compassion.
S Speaking of the future, we have one last question of looking a little bit further ahead. The behavioral science publication recently asked the behavioral science community to write articles about what they think the future of B.E is going to look like. What is your vision for the future of our field?
C
I particularly mean more integration of the neural correlates of the behavior that's being described in other areas in behavioral science.
When I think about some of the most interesting breakthroughs in the work, say on altruism, by Molly Crockett, a professor at Yale, she’s definitely a neuroscientist, but she’s in Yale's psychology department. And I've been at an event with her where she talked about behavioral economics and she, to me, is the embodiment of someone who is spanning these three domains, just so beautifully.
And we get so much richness from understanding what is going on in the brain while we're making this decision, or we're feeling this way about some choices that we’re needing to make.
In particular, I think yes, we have integrated thinking about System 1 and System 2. We've done less to think about the brain under stress and under pressure and what that implies. And as I mentioned earlier on, we get to a greater degree of clarity if we start to integrate thinking about the brain's reward systems and survival circuits, to use Joseph LeDoux’s term.
If we integrate that thinking, we start to notice that the list of 200 biases starts to come down to-- okay, actually we are seeking to maximize what's rewarding. Our sense of what's rewarding is way broader than what economists used to think, but it's going back a little bit to what we might've said the worldly philosophers said, which is what economics used to be known as, and to say actually, there's this huge range of things that we see as fundamentally rewarding that we're seeking to maximize, and there's a range of things that we see as threatening, which we're seeking to minimize.
And then I think that would give us a much cleaner sense of where our gaps and our challenges are as human beings and we'd be navigating these long lists of biases perhaps a little less.
S Wonderful. Well, thank you, Caroline so much again for joining us today. It's been an absolutely fascinating conversation. Is there anything you want to leave our listeners with, perhaps where they can find out more about you and all of your amazing work?
C Oh, thank you. Well, there is a website 'howtohaveagoodday.com' and there's a lot of resources there. You can search on different topics from priorities and productivity, through thinking and relationships and influence and resilience and energy. That's probably a nice place to go. And they can always click on my picture and go to the website to learn more about me if they don't feel like they've already heard far too much from me today.
S Perfect. Thank you, Caroline again, so very much.
E Thanks a lot. Is there a new book in your mind?
C Maybe, but this one took 15 years so, you know.. But I'm still writing and I still have my relationship with Harvard Business Review. So that's where I'll probably focus most of my writing still in the next couple of years. But yes, I'm very interested in uncertainty and how we respond to uncertainty and how we manage that. I find that that's a topic that I cover quite a bit with my clients and I don't really know whether there's anything new to be said about it. So, I don't want to do this unless it feels like there's something that I can genuinely add, but that's certainly an area that I think I might want to spend a bit more time on.
E Thanks a lot, again. It was an amazing conversation. I was sure of it, and now I know it. So thanks a lot for this conversation again. I'm impatient to read your next book on 'uncertainty', and not in 15 years, please. So thanks a lot.
C Thank you. Thank you both.