ERP093 - Managing Superstar Employees

Those who are able to be the example and really inspire others to shoot higher and to be better are those who walk the walk. Welcome to Evolved Radio, where we explore the evolution of business and technology. I'm your host Todd Kane. This episode is brought to you by Evolved Management Training courses. A whole series of courses built specifically for your MSP training needs. There's a project management for MSPs course, an MSP service manager boot camp, MSP security fundamentals, and an IT documentation done right course. Check out the full suite of courses at training.evolvedmgmt.com. Or look for a link in the show notes. Today on the Evolved Radio podcast, I'm joined by Matt Call, assistant professor of management in Maze School of Business at Texas A&M. Matt's research seeks to understand how organizations can create and capture value from its workforce with particular interest in star employees. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal and numerous academic journals. We chat about identifying high performers, the downside risks of high performers, and how they should influence our thinking about stars as managers as well as members of the team. It's a fascinating and practical discussion about how we increase collaboration and cohesiveness of our teams and the importance of social psychology in the workforce. Matt, welcome to the Evolved Radio podcast. Thanks for having me, Todd. All right, so this is a fantastic topic for today. I think we'll just launch straight into things. Your area of research and especially some of the content that you've been looking at, research that you've been doing lately is around managing star employees. Which is a really sort of fascinating area and one area that I think doesn't get quite enough attention in the management sphere. I often find a lot of people tend to spend too much time maybe in my opinion, kind of working with the problem children of the organization. And maybe not enough time on it on on the stars where I think the majority of the time probably should be spent. So we'll probably get into that a little later as well. But first off, as a lead in, just give me a bit of your background and then lead into. How you identify star performers, what do you star employees, how do you sort of qualify that or how would you identify them, I guess? Yeah, well again, thanks for having me, Todd. My background is that I'm a research professor at Texas A&M University and I teach classes in the management department of the business school. But my research really does focus on kind of these these employees that are special, right? That, you know, I I think it was going back to the who was it economist Pareto who talked about, I think he noticed in his garden that there were uh, you know, certain pea pods or something that that were the ones that were producing all of them. And it came up with this this idea of the 80/20 rule, like this Pareto principle. Something like that. Yeah. I don't know. I I use this everywhere. Yeah. Yeah, so so it's the idea that that 20% of the the uh the whatever create 80% of the output, right? And and so. You know, there's there's been a lot of work that's shown that across different contexts and and uh, you know, that that this is kind of true. That productivity is often distributed not necessarily normally but but uh kind of outpace these outliers. So my most recent work and kind of the the way in which that we connected over this Wall Street Journal piece that I wrote that kind of summarizes uh the literature and kind of my my work on it. Is really kind of not only about how to manage them but but how they impact their peers. Um and that's often really the the. The thing that people identify with, you know, you think about when we work with a star. Sometimes we're we're inspired. Sometimes we we want to, you know, they they make us more ambitious, they make us aim higher, we learn from them. But other times we kind of hate them, you know. We kind of think, well, they don't deserve where they're at or or uh. We kind of just it's not psychologically fun to be around someone who's way better at us and things, right? And so, you know, what leads to those different kind of outcomes and and how do we understand that? As well as, you know, one of the big parts of managing stars as well is understanding that the stars themselves. Have kind of some uncomfortable kind of social kind of things they have to deal with. They're victimized a lot, right? People who do well have to try and navigate a situation where other people are uncomfortable with their presence or with their performance. And so those are the things that we that I'm interested in in terms of research. All right, so yeah, good summary. How do we identify like I I think everyone sort of has an opinion of this. And I'm I'm sort of curious of your perspective obviously because in your research, how would you identify who is the star performer in an organization in order to study their effects, I guess, right? I think there's two different questions here. One is how do you identify a future star? And that really is the million dollar question, right? And the other one is kind of what we would say is after the fact, what does a star look like? And my research is often doing a ladder, right? Because. But I think understanding who a star is can also help you once you codify that better can help you understand who's going to have the potential to be those. So I would conceptualize stars as first of all having kind of high performance, right? So them being on an outlying kind of just on on the on the tails of the distribution in terms of their performance. But I actually personally think there's a difference between someone who's just an individual contributor, somebody who is a high performer and a star. I also think stars have a couple of other elements. And and in particular, I could I kind of talk about this as a certain amount of. Awareness and social, I call it social capital, right? This goodwill among others, this idea that they are also viewed visibly as somebody who is good, right? So it's not just they're in their basement, you know, producing and and killing it. They also kind of have this confidence of their peers and a reputation that kind of has important kind of consequences associated with the fact that they're well known, right? Is also a part of being a star in my mind. And and some of that, how do you become that? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with your ability to navigate social relationships, your ability to to show forth authenticity, your ability to learn how to gain the trust of other people and the favor of other people. So in in for lack of a better term, I actually like the there's there's something in the in the applied psychological literature. It's called political skill. Mm. And talks a lot of it's kind of emotional intelligence, but it talks about this idea of of how how to come off as sincere and authentic. And how to navigate social relationships such that people kind of want you in their corner. And so I would argue that stars have performance, but that's kind of like a necessary but insufficient condition to be a star. I think I think a star also has these other qualities that make them visible and make them kind of consequential in ways that that high performers. They are high performers, right? But that regular high performers who don't have these other elements of visibility and kind of social capital, uh make them more consequential. I I think this is a really interesting insight. So for two reasons, one, like you said, like the the the the political impact or the social impact with the rest of the team is consequential. I think it's a good way to put it. But I think there's also the sort of the identification of and their recognition of their own skill and whether or not that's in line with what they feel is either being recognized or supported or valued in an organization. And I see this a lot, especially in the technical industry, where people sort of lean on competence a little too heavily. And they're kind of the like technically a bit of the the asshole in the group, but they know that they're incredibly good at what they do and they feel like that should be enough. And they're like, well, what do you want from me, like, I'm doing all of this, like, everyone relies on me, like, why do I have to do X, Y and Z? And they they feel like that almost gives them a pass in a certain a certain way, right? Yeah, well, and that only kind of reinforces this kind of already psychological hesitancy or kind of dissonance that people are experiencing around them because of their high performance, right? Their high performance, the deviation from the norm and performance makes others uncomfortable. Sometimes even their leaders uncomfortable, right? And and because of the way it it makes them look, right? And so you already have this presence that makes makes others nervous because it points out their lack of performance and then on top of that, you you have this tendency towards, you know, what you're talking about. And it only reinforces that. It gives me a reason to not like you, right? Because he doesn't work well with others, he's this and that. And I think often times, you know, star employees in quotes, get this rap because of this kind of negative cycle. And one of the things we talk about and I often focus on is is uh. You know, stars have different levers if if you are a, well, first of all, so let me let me kind of back up and and address. You're talking about. The classic thing is especially in a lot of professions, technical professions is you promote the best whatever. And they suck at being a manager, right? Yep. And and so that that's just something that happens all the time, right? And and uh and they and all of those excuses and reasons why, you know, why are you asking this of me? And I'm just doing my job, I'm teaching them how to do, they don't know how to do their job. Is is is this kind of common thing. But in order to get to to be and I would argue those people are still kind of high performers, right? That's how I conceptualize them. People who become stars, I think rise above that because of these other elements, these other soft skills that help them navigate that. And there are certain things that that we actually have found characteristics of that stars display that make them less threatening, right? And if they can lean into those and learn and recognize, hey, people do not, people are going to have a hard time around me. So let me help them navigate that psychological discomfort, right? And help them to see, look, knowing me is actually a good thing for you. Right? If if if I'm the star, helping them to recognize, I you know, because I think in in a certain sense, if they can kind of see it. See that working with the star is an opportunity instead of a threat, all of a sudden, you get into this world where people want you to succeed. Even though you're way better than them, etcetera, right? And so you you have to help them to to overcome that. So what do you see as sort of the difference in this around, I think soft skills touching on that was was was definitely what was sort of ringing in my head around the difference that's here and and the difference that that makes. Because what I see a lot of cases is is that star performer or the the the high performer on the team. Like, hey, you're really good at your job, I'll promote you and you become a manager. And what people in and leadership often don't recognize is promotion to management is a career change more than it is a promotion unto itself. Because you're like, what got you, what made you successful in your individual contributor role almost has very little to do with what you, what makes you successful as a manager. So I often sort of advise people that looking for the more administratively minded, like organized and social member of the team that isn't necessarily the best individual contributor, but actually has those soft skills is probably a better pick for the leadership of the team. Is that sort of a line with what with what you're seeing? Yeah, I mean, I would say that those who are the best individual contributors that cultivate these skills would be the best, right? Because then they also have the confidence, then they can also kind of, I mean, the peer, what we call them is peer spillover, those who are able to be the example and really inspire others to shoot higher and to be better. Are those who walk the walk, right? And they've seen this. They have a reputation. They have they. Everything they're saying is backed by it, right? I mean, yeah, of course you have people who are who are good managers and not necessarily great at their job. But I I still think there's going to be some sense of, you know, a lack of respect, right? Uh for those people. But no, I I agree with you. I I think I'd rather have someone who was who was above average at their job. With with good managerial leadership potential to be a leader than an outlying individual contributor who is horrible at management. Yeah, because the other half of this, I almost feel like like you're you're you're sort of stealing from the productivity of the team. If you take the highest performer and try to make them management. So like in a lot of ways it's it's it's not sort of the best idea. Plus, like as you said, it's a bit of a unicorn situation if you if the the highest performing member of your team is also the most capable. Like that's amazing. But I don't find that that's often the case, like those like they they don't often run together, like it's it's certainly out there, but they're they're an edge case in my mind, I suppose. They could be. But it's interesting because, you know, most of the executives that I've worked with and seen. CEOs and etcetera always have this kind of I think in the media this kind of reputation of being jerks and and hubris and and whatever. But to be honest, my personal experience, which isn't a ton, but they're usually these stars. They usually have done great things and they usually actually have. Fantastic leadership skills, they they remember people's names. They, you know, they're extremely smart, but they're also extremely emotionally intelligent as well. And so, so yeah, they may be somewhat unicorns, but I I would argue that that most people who end up getting to the top do have both uh in some regard, right? Yeah. No, I think that's true, right? Because like the selection process to become an executive of say, you know, a large organization, Fortune 1000 or something like that is uh is pretty grueling, right? It it does filter out for the unicorns essentially, right? Yeah. Just one other piece that you touch on there, right, like this is a bit of a tangent, but I I have a bit of a fascination with this topic is the difference between sort of a celebrity CEO and a really sort of high performance functional CEO. Like the classic example that you kind of noted is the asshole CEO and like Steve Jobs jumps to mind as as sort of the the shining example of this. Of like what he look at what he accomplished and he just didn't give a shit and treated people poorly. Like that's not necessarily why he was successful. And I feel like like folks like uh Satya Nadella or Tim Cook, for example, like those people don't necessarily get sort of the same recognition. Because they're not they don't they're not flashy and they don't appear in the industry, right? I think Elon Musk is another example of this of someone who got a lot of credit and was recognized as a celebrity CEO, but, you know, maybe for all the wrong reasons. And I feel like like we should we should switch a bit of this to the the so the idealization of more sort of productive and impactful CEOs rather than the flashy ones. I don't know, side side comment, but if you have any thoughts on that, I'll be curious. Yeah. No. I think there's uh several reasons why we become enamored with individuals and not all of the reasons why we we want to hear or fascinated by people are because of their good traits, right? I think there's part of us. You know, it's that whole Freud, right? We we like to see people's weakness at the top. We'd like to and it makes us feel better about not being the top, right? And and that's part of why, you know, right now it's it's it's fun to kind of hate Elon Musk. And and be like, well, yeah, he's ruined Twitter, etcetera, etcetera. I don't know, I mean, I don't even have an opinion on it. But. So I don't know that we can and and the news cycle kind of perpetuates what people like and what people click on and what people listen to. And I think, you know, in a lot of ways, we do know from a psychological perspective that that kind of people ruminate on negative information more, right? And and kind of tend to think about it more and be more attracted to they're more sticky thoughts, right? And so. Yeah, I don't know that we can change the the you know, the way in which we we reward uh people with our own attention, right? Yeah. It's true, I think you're right, it's just a negative side of the deep psychology. So not something that we can just correct because it is so embedded in us, unfortunately, I suppose. Right, right. So I guess the obvious question here and like I think we both know the answer to this, but I suppose let's get this out of the way. Why don't we want an entire team of high performers, wouldn't that make sense if everyone's kicking ass on your team? So what's interesting is so some of the work that I've done suggests that there is kind of. A point at which there are diminishing returns to having the proportion of stars on the team. Be above, you know, and it was in a healthcare setting and a banking context. We we saw around in the mid 20%. And I I actually it was funny because in the Wall Street Journal you can reply to the author, right? They don't have luckily they don't have uh a you know, a section at the bottom for comments because I would not, you know, want to hear how brutal people were to me there. But I did get someone answer to me and said, that's a load of crap. I always just hire a bunch of stars and you you blah, blah, blah. And I was like, okay. I'm not saying that's wrong, right? Of course. I understand particularly when we're talking about executive teams, we want all those people to be stars. What we're talking about is just like run of the mill teams that you're putting together as a manager, right? And and I would suggest that as much as it might be this idea of kind of status in fighting. Like people vying for their own position that leads to less knowledge sharing, less trust, less cooperation when you have multiple stars on the team. I think it's probably just as much driven by this idea of. Kind of like a a duplication of efforts, right? Like just just kind of a not as much good being done. Because you have enough people there, you know what I mean? So. Doing good already. And and when when in terms of one of the the things we we talked about was in terms of the learning that can happen among your non-stars. You know, I I just feel like the the returns start to get less, right? Once you have more and and you could argue that like. One or two really good stars that are that are leading by example and that people really want to follow might be as good for the non-stars. As uh depending on be the team is of course, as, you know, half the team being stars. And then they're kind of not even stars anymore, right? Because stardom is kind of a relative, you know, assessment of where I am versus everyone else. So. So yeah, I think there's two different mechanisms that you might be able to argue, one is kind of this idea of status conflict that arises when you have too many stars. But, you know, there are different ways you could even address that. If there are different functions that stars occupy, I would argue that you really don't have this kind of diminishing returns as much. So if you have like a cross discipline or cross functional team where you have stars in each of those different functions. I think that can be a great situation, right? And so this guy who's who's angry at me online, uh emailing me. I didn't email him back, of course, but. What I would tell him is, look, if you're if you're like in a small business or if you're in a team that that people have really defined distinct roles. Yeah, hire the star for all of it, right? And they'll want and and get stuff done and be able to help each other to be even better and be a star team, right? But if you're have a bunch of sales reps or a bunch of, you know, some people in a situation, at some point there's diminishing returns. Uh at least the data would suggest to having more stars on the team for the total output. Yeah, yeah. And that's that the sales example is often what I sort of relate to in this is if everyone's trying to step on each other in order to climb to the top, right? Like you the the the collaboration kind of goes out the window fairly quickly. Whereas if you have, you know, a team of eight people, uh one star, one one sort of like fairly visionary and and effective leader. And then, you know, uh usually end up with sort of the middle of the road people that are just sort of getting by and doing the things that are done, like they have high accountability, but they're not necessarily striving for the next thing. Then you've got sort of the a small core of the group, which is incredibly supportive and relies a lot on that social cohesiveness and collaboration and working with others. Like that that to me is sort of the makeup of an all-star team in my mind. Yep. Yep. Yeah, and you need that, right? You you can't have people, you can't waste time, you need to be able to share information, you need to be able to trust each other. Particularly another element that that really shapes whether or not the proportion of stars has diminishing returns is how interdependent they are as well, right? I mean, if they really need each other to get their job done, that makes it harder when you have. People who aren't working together well. If they're all kind of individually doing their own thing, it probably isn't going to matter much. Hire all the stars you want, right? It shouldn't really be a big deal. So how should we think about maximizing the potential of the stars that we do identify in the team? Well, I think helping them to recognize that that they influence their peers. And helping them, one of the things that I consult on with star employees is helping them to recognize that that you can't just assume people are going to like you. In fact, you kind of are fighting an uphill battle when it comes to you being great around other people. You're going to be threatening to to a lot of people. And so to the extent that you can help them to reduce that threatening aspect. And and help others see them more as an opportunity to work around them better. And so a couple of things in that vein. I don't know if you want me to get into details of this, but. One of the things we talk about is showing what I would say some humility, right? And I'm not saying say you're not good when you are. I don't see that as humility. I see humility as kind of more of a quiet strength that shows and is honest about where you can still learn. And that is able to give credit where credit is due. And is and is somebody who is looking at themselves as still as a work in progress, right? And is able to outline when when something happens and does it well, I'm not saying you need to to avoid praise or avoid credit. What I'm saying is is you give credit to all those around you that did well as well. And and others put together and and find out for themselves, yeah, we know that person is great, right? And they don't have to talk about it all the time, right? The humility piece is important. I would also say there's a vulnerability piece that is important as well. And what I mean by that is somebody who's not afraid to kind of. Reveal their humanness, reveal their struggles, reveal. And maybe it's not even at work, right? Maybe you just are a little bit more real and bring your whole person to work. And at work you're still amazing, but people around you are going to have a harder time kind of objectifying you as this person that I don't like. When I'm able to know who you are inside and outside of work and know that you're a person that you have struggles. That you fought to get where you are, right? I have to respect that, right? Um that you paid a price, right? And and a price that frankly, me as the non-star, I'm not willing to pay, right? And so I respect it and I and I say good, good for you. I'm I'm okay with that, right? Never trying to seek for any any special privileges or credit that you don't deserve. That's something that just immediately turns people off, right? If you're if you're looking for. And a lot of times people, one of my favorite organizational psychologists, Denise Rousseau has a whole kind of program of research on on idiosyncratic deals. Meaning like. Especially with stars, you get often times they'll make certain exceptions. You can do you can work from home more than everyone else. You can uh obviously you get paid more, you're able to have your own parking spot, we give you more vacation time, we give you this, we give you that. I think you need to be really careful about how much that is, how transparent you are about those things as an organization. You don't necessarily want to hide it, but you don't necessarily need to throw it in people's faces, right? Simply because people's inequity. You know, they there's a self-serving bias, right? And we tend to inflate our own inputs into whatever situation. And we we tend to deflate others inputs, right? So you're always going to be working against the fact that, you know, that person. They don't they aren't that they think they're greater. I do all this work and. When in the end, usually it's kind of a market that decides the value of that person's human capital in mind. And having that conversation just kind of a conversation. So, so the extent to which you you shouldn't flaunt any special treatment that you have. And if there is special treatment, explain why, right? Uh make sure that people's kind of sense of equity is uh is really kind of clear and explained. One other thing that we've found and this is kind of more uh more nuanced. Is that when there is an a big age difference. That it actually is a lot easier for me to see them as an opportunity. So for instance. And this is another way, so I have I have one paper right now that looks at how stars kind of contribute to value in organizations differently at different career stages. Often times, you know, their individual contributing is is at their height when they're younger in their earlier phase. And later on, they they are often more predisposed to think about their legacy and invest in others. And organizations if they can kind of capitalize on this, I think they can see it as something that. They can use that to their advantage, right? And so. When I so let me take a step back and talk about why someone who's older, an older star is less threatening. Well, if you think about it in terms of my ability to. Attain that person's kind of status or productivity. I can because I have 10, 20 years to do it, right? And so I see them as someone I would love to be in the future. It's much more threatening when I see somebody who's like my age, who is at my career stage, killing it. It's like, I can't reach them. Right. It's too late for me, right? Um and so that age difference, this idea of older stars pairing them kind of strategically with younger hopefuls, right? Is another way to kind of capitalize on on these peer spillover again, which is what I'm interested in. Is how how we get them to have these peer spillover. Not only are they more able, they have more social kind of capital. They have more reputational capital. They also are more motivated to do so. They care about their legacy at this point. They care about. They've already made their millions, now they're want to make other people millionaires, right? And so that's. You know, this this idea that they can kind of symbolically achieve immortality through their legacy, right? Through through instilling their beliefs, their norms, their technical kind of, you know, the way and the way they do the work, right? Instill that in their own kind of progeny, right? It goes back to kind of child development, Eric Erikson. You know, uh he was the one who kind of did this whole idea of generativity, right? But that's been applied at work and and especially with stars who kind of see they identify so heavily with their careers. That when that when the death of that comes, right, when they're looking at their retirement, they're starting to think, well, how do how can I. They don't think about it, but the process becomes like how do I achieve immortality, well, I instill my image in the next generation, right? And so. Firms should capitalize on that and, you know, it's interesting. Because a lot of times firms will they'll hire somebody. And they'll hire an older star or they'll they'll look at an older star. And they'll be like, they haven't done anything, you know, they're not producing like they used to. We're not going to buy. It's like, well, you shouldn't be looking for that. And and fine, don't do it if that's what you're looking for. Look for somebody young and hungry looking to prove, looking to still and and still at their prime. But you shouldn't overlook those who, you know, might intrinsically kind of of their own choice want to invest in the next generation. Put them in place, put them make them visible, make them mentors. And, you know, I think it's an important way to to utilize and and uh make that that peer spillover more salient. Yeah, I think more organizations would benefit from either formal or informal mentorships like this. I've I've seen this effect time and time again. I think you're right, like the peer is absolutely more threatening. But someone that they they sort of recognize as as older. I guess they're often a little less boisterous about it too. Like it's a quiet confidence when in an older generation. Not always the case, but. I find that's often the case. Yeah, it comes with that level of maturity. And I've seen a lot of young stars rise up under the wing of someone older who sort of recognized like, they kind of remind me of me when I was younger and I was a hard charger. And I and I'll I'll teach this kid a couple of things, basically, right? Yeah, no, and that and that's so. You know, so important we talk about kind of how to identify stars. Are stars made or are they identified? And and I would argue that that most people who do end up achieving stardom as I define them. Uh have people in their lives like this, you know, professional mentors that that have cultivated them. And, you know, it it's amazing. Even like so take a look at sports, you know, the the amount of, you know, NBA players who had a a parent who played in the NBA is is non-trivial, right? I mean. And and so what I mean by that is is like people need to be taught, right? People, there are a lot of forces working against high performers to make it so they don't achieve stardom. And so having someone else who they respect saying, whoa, you got to stop flaunting this, right? Or you need to take a step back. You need to. You need to learn still from others, you need to be more humble, you need to etcetera. Having someone to help them to realize, no, this is the long game, right? Of building a reputation that is respected, right? It's one thing to be a top, you know, performer one year. But how many of those people burn out, right? A ton of them. Right? It's another thing to slowly build up a coalition of not only individual productivity. But a network of people supporting you who want you to win, right? And and who who cheer for you even though you're the one getting the benefit and not them, right? So learning how to have that type of reputation is something that people don't just fall into naturally, right? Um there's usually a lot of coaching. One of the things that sort of occurs to me as we're talking about this is I I feel like. So much of this is subliminal psychology that that is applicable both in personal and professional life. But I feel like that's often not talked about or recognized. Is is these things are somewhat universally applicable. What's your thought on that, like all the the sort of the psychological basis, like the tribalism, the ego, all of those things that that seem to sort of place such a huge weight in interpersonal relationships. And and sort of the makeup of the team and how people work together, but I feel like there's maybe either a reticence to talk about it. Or to at least sort of a non-recognition of how much these things really influence our day-to-day work. I mean, that that's literally my world, right? As a behavioral scientist. You know, a large part of my job, I love interacting, you know, with the media. And with and with. You know, practice, but but most of my job. What I'm paid to do is is get in these dog fights with other researchers, with psychologists, right? And and try and publish in peer-reviewed articles. Uh peer-reviewed journals. And so I deeply believe that uh yeah, it's psychology and sociology and anthropology that leads to when someone's good leader. When someone's a good performer. When someone's a good team member. You know, all of those things. I agree with you that the science behind it is not often appreciated. And I think there's I'll take I think my field can take some responsibility for it. I think often times we are not incentivized to do what we're doing right now and hop on a podcast. And so I think we need to do better at translating it as well, right? We need to do better at recognizing the language differences and, you know, the the incentives that are out there in the world of work. Uh rather than just the academic setting, which we we tend to kind of isolate ourselves and probably too much. And and so there there are some people doing really well, you know, like everyone knows Adam Grant. Etc. People like that. You know, these these people who are. I mean, he's he is a legitimate scientist, right? But he's also translating it for the public, you know, and doing a great job. So I have a lot of respect for people who kind of do both. But but you're right. I think, you know, science is slow. Science is we use sometimes esoteric language. And there's a good reason for that from our perspective. And we're often careful to make statements, right, because we're we're trained and taught to be so hesitant. And you know, this whole idea that, you know, a theory is only true until it's proven false. And so we we we just don't like to make too many claims. And so that doesn't often, you know, drive super well with managers who want answers now. And they want certainty, right? And they want they want it to happen fast because they're that's the world they live in. And so. Yeah, I think there is a bit of a divide. But but with that said, Todd, I think there's just also a lot to learn, right? And that's why I think it's so fun to tackle issues that are that are really important to managers. Yeah, I think you're right, like the access and the visibility and and the the translation of of the research. To to the public, I think is is an important aspect, but my question was actually not necessarily kind of saying where are you guys at on this. I I feel like it like I said, it's it's a reticence or a non-recognition for sort of the normal people about what are the realities that they see in front of them. And a good example that I'll maybe run past you is is out sort of outside sort of the what we're talking about here. But I think you'll probably have some experience with this or at least have some thoughts on it. Is one of the things that I often ask people when I start consulting with them is is what is your org chart? Can you show me your org chart? And small business quite often doesn't have one. And the answer I'm often posed with is, well, you know, it's a flat organization. Like I don't see that as necessary. I'm like, really? Like I'm not talking about hierarchy from command and control perspective, I'm saying that that humans are still somewhat tribal and they want to they they naturally and somewhat subliminally want to look up and understand who is their leader. Like who are they following? And if there's no recognition or formality of that, I find it gets a little messy. And you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, so. Yeah, so a couple different things. One to this idea that people often look towards convention. Right, things that work almost universally and think it doesn't apply here, right? I think that's something that people kind of wear that as a badge of honor. We're non-conventional, right? And that's maybe even part of our culture and and part of our ability to feel. Unique, right, uh and which is which is important, right? For for a business. But at the same time, I think what businesses need to do is just recognize that like you can't reinvent the wheel. Those things exist for a reason. And you need to know why you're not using them, right? And and uh try out in your mind using it and then and then change it as needed. But don't just assume you don't need it, right? Because it ends up being just kind of silly. And and and it's amazing how many people, particularly in the small business realm, could benefit. My goodness, from just some pretty rudimentary. Kind of skills and and thoughts. So yeah, no, I I see what you're saying there. Yeah, and some of this, like I said, is like what I'm hinging this on is like this is deep seated psychology. This is not something like like you may have a different culture. But, you know, humans are humans and still will behave that way. And that that's what I'm sort of getting at here. Is I think a lot of the the important research that you guys are doing are identifying and codifying the things that psychology has already said. We recognize how they function within a business context. And now like it's reapplied knowledge in a lot of ways and it's still incredibly useful. But why isn't everyone else attaching to this and saying, like, this is important for my business as as important as strategy and marketing, right? Like around how the humans function inside this building, I think is incredibly important. Yeah, no, and I would agree, you know, I built my my life's work around it for sure. And so. So so no, I I I get that. The the hard thing is and and this is what, you know, teaching, you know, especially, you know, master students. A lot of times I think the the MBA is is centered around an economics kind of framework, right? And for good reason, right? And I think the mindset of economics is really about markets, it's about value, it's about competition. And it's about understanding a landscape and and how you can find your niche in that landscape, right? There is behavior economics that that steals ideas from psychology and that's fine. But you're right, I think the train the business training that we have right now, you know, teach a class on leadership. And most, not not all, but many people in that class are like, these are just soft skills. Like, you either have them or you don't, right? Right. Like you can't really teach them. And that's patently false, right? I mean, I think anybody again, I've said this before, anybody who rises to this top in leadership of organizations takes them very seriously, right? Like they take all of the psychology involved in in being a leader, being a good team member, being, you know, doing your well, they take it very, very seriously. And they they put time into it. You know, being a a leader is not natural. No, no one's just great. They they've put in a ton of time and work and paid attention to, you know, the evidence of of and and looked at role models who have done that as well. So, so I think you're right. Of course, I mean, you're preaching to the chorus. I sure. I I sure believe that's important. Yeah. Yeah. Right on. Well, this has been really fascinating, Matt. I appreciate your time and uh applaud the work that you do and I think this as I said, I think this stuff is incredibly important. And and I I think deserves wide recognition for its impacts on business and and growth of business. And and just making people work better together, whether or not they're a star performer or not, right? Absolutely. Hey, thank you, Todd. Thanks for having me on.