podcast episode
191
Audio Recording
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 25:11 — 12.6MB)
Developing others is often underestimated by leaders. In Zenger Folkman’s research, leaders in the bottom quartile for developing others were only at the 21st percentile in overall leadership effectiveness, while those in the top quartile reached the 85th percentile.
That’s a 64-percentile-point difference.
AI can create a development plan in seconds. What it cannot do is observe an employee’s interactions, recognize how other people respond to them, and personally invest in whether that employee grows.
As AI takes over more technical and tactical work, coaching and developing people may become an even more important part of a manager’s job.
Inspiring and motivating others presents an unusual leadership paradox.
Direct reports rank it as the most important leadership competency, yet when leaders are evaluated on how effectively they inspire and motivate, it ranks 19th out of 19 competencies.
AI in the workplace can help people complete tasks more efficiently, but efficiency alone doesn’t create meaning.
The opportunity for leaders is to use some of the capacity AI creates to spend more time helping employees understand why their work matters, connecting individual contributions to a larger purpose, and creating the human experiences people remember long after a project ends.
Leaders can’t confidently tell employees exactly how AI will affect every job. Trying to provide certainty that doesn’t exist can ultimately undermine trust.
Zenger Folkman’s research shows how consequential trust can be. When trust in a manager is low, 45% of employees report thinking about quitting and only 22% are willing to give extra effort. When trust is high, those numbers shift dramatically: 18% are thinking about quitting and 57% are willing to give extra effort.
The goal isn’t consistency of forecast. It’s consistency of character.
During uncertainty, leaders can build trust through positive relationships, consistency, expertise, transparency, and by following through on what they promise.
An AI tool can tell an employee they’ve done a good job. But as Joe points out in the conversation, that isn’t the same experience as having a manager notice the work, understand what went into it, and personally acknowledge it.
That’s an important distinction for organizations thinking about AI in the workplace.
As technology becomes better at replicating certain managerial tasks, leaders should become more intentional about the experiences that depend on genuine human relationships: recognition, empathy, coaching, shared accomplishment, trust, and connection.
When Zenger Folkman examined leaders who were strong at championing change, innovation, and technical expertise, several additional strengths emerged: strategic perspective, establishing stretch goals, communicating powerfully, and inspiring and motivating others.
These aren’t new leadership competencies.
The technology has changed. The fundamentals of extraordinary leadership haven’t.
The challenge for organizations isn’t simply teaching leaders how to use AI. It’s ensuring they have the leadership capabilities necessary to guide people through the disruption AI creates.
Jonathan closes the conversation with three questions leaders can ask themselves:
Who am I actually developing?
Can I name the person—and what they’re currently working to improve?
What am I giving my people beyond a target?
Have I helped them understand why their work matters?
What did I promise my team last month?
And did I actually do it?
These questions are simple, but they point directly toward the human leadership capabilities that become increasingly valuable as AI changes how work gets done.
Organizations investing in AI transformation also need to invest in the people responsible for leading that transformation.
Zenger Folkman’s research has consistently shown that extraordinary leadership isn’t built around one personality type or a single management technique. It comes from identifying the leadership behaviors that have the greatest impact and deliberately building strengths that improve both business results and the employee experience.
The Extraordinary Leader helps organizations use research-backed 360-degree feedback and a strengths-based development approach to help leaders understand how others experience their leadership and identify the capabilities that can make the greatest difference.
As AI in the workplace changes what leaders do, leadership development can help managers strengthen the capabilities technology cannot simply automate—coaching and developing others, inspiring performance, building trust, communicating through change, and creating stronger human connections.
AI transformation isn’t only a technology initiative. It’s a leadership challenge.
If your organization is navigating AI in the workplace, Zenger Folkman can help you develop leaders who are prepared to lead people through change, build trust during uncertainty, and create the engagement and performance organizations need to succeed.
[Learn More About Zenger Folkman’s Leadership Development Solutions →]
Jonathan Bowder is the founder of The S.W.I.T.C.H. Lab, a leadership development practice based in Hampshire, United Kingdom, and a Zenger Folkman Master Trainer for The Extraordinary Leader in Europe.
Jonathan began his career with Rogen S.I., a mindset and communication consultancy, and today works with leaders across pharmaceuticals, financial services, fintech, energy, and professional services.
He is also writing Humanify, a book exploring leadership and humanity in an era of technological disruption. At the center of his work is a timely question: As technology becomes increasingly capable, how can organizations become more—not less—human?
AI can analyze data, write a strategy, track performance, and even simulate a coaching conversation. So what makes leaders matter when AI can do so much of the work? Jonathan, you’ve described AI as a leadership problem, disguised as a technology problem.
Jonathan Bowder (00:03.174)
you
BreAnne Okoren (00:29.769)
What do you mean by that?
Jonathan Bowder (00:31.675)
BreAnne that’s an excellent question. So we’re hearing two big themes from clients, a consensus of opinion, but also a gap about what that consensus actually means. So the consensus is very close to what you’ve just shared, that AI is a leadership problem disguised as a technological problem.
Let me unpack that. Let’s look at what the consensus is actually comprised of. So first of all, you’ve got a whole slew of C-suite leaders who’ve gone on record, whether it’s the CEO of JP Morgan, Microsoft, Citadel Capital, all saying that to create enterprise wide value, it’s not so much about the technology, it’s about the soft skills. But unusually employees are lined up on that position as well, Brianne, if we take the Workday sample as a example of that.
BreAnne Okoren (01:12.108)
Mm-hmm.
Jonathan Bowder (01:20.321)
Over 75 % of employees in an age of technological disruption paradoxically want more human connection. The big consulting shops tend to agree as well. mean, the McKinsey paper, I think we’ve all seen that circulating for the last 18 months. I think a whopping 1 % of organizations feel that they’re at AI maturity and McKinsey are pointing the finger at leadership rather than technical skills. Even the frontier labs.
BreAnne Okoren (01:35.744)
Yeah.
Jonathan Bowder (01:48.814)
a part of that consensus. So interestingly, one of our clients reached out to a well-known lab with a very well-known LLM, which I’m sure we will benefit from using. And they didn’t have a corporate position on exactly what interpersonal and leadership skills are required in an age of AI disruption. So they are part of the consensus, but also they’re part of the gap.
So when everyone is clamoring for the right kinds of leadership and soft skills, but no one knows what they are, it’s time to pick up the phone and speak to Dr. Joe Folkman which is what I did.
BreAnne Okoren (02:29.804)
And underneath that question, Jonathan, is something what we’re all asking as we are seeing jobs being lost. Will AI take my job? you believe there is an even more human question than that scary question about your job is do I still matter? And that is where we’re beginning today. Welcome to the 90th Percentile Leadership Insights Backed by Data. I’m Brianne O’Corrin, and joining me today is.
Is Jonathan Bow how do I say Jonathan Bowder?
Jonathan Bowder (03:02.487)
powder, like powder with a B. For Brianne.
BreAnne Okoren (03:04.712)
Okay. Joining us today is Jonathan Bowder and my co host, Joe Folkman.
Joe Folkman (03:10.826)
Hi Bre. Good to be here. I’m kind of on vacation, but
BreAnne Okoren (03:14.444)
So today we’re asking a question almost every organization is wrestling with. What makes leadership essential when AI can perform more of the analytical and executional work leaders once did themselves? Jonathan is the founder of the Switch Lab. Now, do I say the Switch Lab or do I say S-W-I-T? Okay, okay. Jonathan is the founder of the Switch Lab, a leadership development practice based in Hampshire.
Jonathan Bowder (03:35.695)
This lab is great.
BreAnne Okoren (03:43.465)
In the United Kingdom. He’s also one of Zenger Folkman’s master trainers of The Extraordinary Leader in Europe. Jonathan began his career with Rogen S.I., the mindset and communication consultancy, and now works with leaders across pharmaceuticals, financial services, fine tech energy, and professional services. He’s also writing a book called Humanify. Its argument is especially relevant to today’s conversation. Every major technological wave since James Watts’ steam engine has ultimately
Has ultimately rewarded organizations that treated people with dignity. This wave is different in one important respect. AI is coming for our monopoly on cognition. So Jonathan and Joe set out to answer a direct question in a new white paper that they have published. Why does leadership still matter in the age of AI? Jonathan, welcome to the show.
Jonathan Bowder (04:35.461)
Thank you very much, Brianne, really psyched to be here.
BreAnne Okoren (04:38.646)
So this research, we talked a little, I loved what you said in the beginning, began with a client you said asking one of the leading AI labs which leadership skills would unlock AI transformation. Can you tell us more about what
Jonathan Bowder (04:52.729)
Absolutely. So they were mandated to train in technical skills into their entire population, which I think is a pretty well known trend at the moment. But they were seeing sloppy adoption, but also a raising of the ontological questions, which you alluded to, do I still matter, lower motivation levels, but also a lack of joined up thinking, how we can actually
CAI as a friend and something that created enterprise wide value rather than a threat to our own status and our own wellbeing. So they knew that they had to do something to compliment the technical skills, but they went out to the open market to find out what that something was and got a lot of noise, which was the consensus that I shared with you, but didn’t get a lot of how and specifics about what we should be doing as a leadership development community.
but what the C-suite should be doing about making sure that people have the leadership skills that are fit for purpose for an age of unprecedented disruption.
BreAnne Okoren (05:59.661)
So Joe, when Jonathan brought you this question, he told you this story, what did you want the data to clarify? What did you want to see in there? Or expect to see?
Joe Folkman (06:09.644)
Well
As usual we went to our golden database, right, of two million assessments, 138,000 liters. And we looked also at the data from 2023 onward to see if we could find some clues into what was going on. And it really led us to some interesting observations and some some what really is kind of three competencies that John and Jonathan identified.
BreAnne Okoren (06:27.5)
Mm.
Joe Folkman (06:41.27)
as being critical in this transition.
BreAnne Okoren (06:45.782)
So Jonathan, did you expect the data to reveal like a completely new model of leadership for the AI area? Somebody said that’s that again.
Jonathan Bowder (06:54.555)
Well, the answer is no, but it’s a qualified no. So no for a couple of reasons. First of all, as a cheerleader for Team Human, I was almost hoping that the case for the human would be made when Joe re-cut the data. But also as someone who’s taken a data-driven view of leadership development, I expected to see the story replicating.
that extraordinary leaders and organizations that invest in leadership tend to actually bring together those twin poles of getting things done, but getting things done through people. And that furthermore, there wouldn’t be a trade-off between the two. Often organizations I find in our practice drive results at the expense of interpersonal skills or invest in interpersonal skills and don’t leverage the emotional equity that they’ve actually got. Also with a historical lens,
We’ve studied the last 250 years of technical disruption from James Watt’s steam engine to electrification to the World Wide Web. And there seems to be a replicable pattern. There is huge panic. There is fear of job losses. There are these ontological questions of do I matter? And team humans somehow muddled through. So we were expecting to see a similar iteration of that. My caveat though and slight queasiness was
There are two things different in this technological wave. To your very astute point at the beginning, Brianne, this is arguably the first time that our cognition has been threatened, something that we thought was uniquely ours. And also there’s a growing field of opinion that says that AI is not only coming for our cognition, it’s coming for us as well. You probably read about the open AI bots that escape the stamp it. I mean, that’s like.
BreAnne Okoren (08:42.452)
I did, I did this morning
Jonathan Bowder (08:45.593)
What’s going on? just recently just popped up on my feed. There’s a researcher who’s worked for OpenAI and Anthropic who’s just resigned, sees themselves as a whistleblower and he’s going, there are no safeguards, it’s coming for us. Now, rather than disputing that, a senior executive at his current employment says he’s actually got a point. There probably is a 10 % chance that AI can wipe out humanity over the next decade.
Joe Folkman (09:11.884)
Ha ha ha.
Jonathan Bowder (09:12.923)
Let’s not go there, but it’s interesting. And again, this technical versus human sort of jive is taking place there. All the noise I’m hearing from tech leaders is we have to have better kill switches. We have to have better isolated networks. Whereas to me, I think I’m pretty sure to be converted here, Joe and Brianne, that’s a governance issue. That’s a leadership issue. And without the framing and governance of
robust leadership, I don’t think any engineer is going to actually come up with the safeguards and regulation that we need to stop that, the unthinkable happening.
Joe Folkman (11:58.807)
You know, it’s an interesting competency because developing others
It’s ranked in terms of importance 11th out of 19 competencies. For direct reports, it’s actually 10th. So they find that kind of more important than everybody else. But both groups viewed it as critical or useful, but not essential. Now, leaders in the bottom quartile on developing others, interestingly enough, were only at the 21st percentile in their overall effectiveness.
So there’s an impact for not doing it well. Those in the top quartile were at the 85th percentile. So even though they don’t see it as important, when people do it and they do it well, there’s a lot of positivity that they get from that. So that’s a 64 percentile difference between those in the bottom and the top quartile.
BreAnne Okoren (12:55.67)
So I guess I’m wondering, Jonathan, why do leaders undervalue a capability with such an enormous relationship to effectiveness ratio that Joe talked about?
Jonathan Bowder (13:07.865)
You’ve got it. I think it’s something you’ve alluded to on previous podcasts. Coaching requires a huge amount of energy and listening. It also requires patience. So in an age of instant gratification, when we’ve all got dashboards and we’re rewarded on keeping those dashboards green and getting instant results, something that’s important, but not urgent until it becomes urgent, like taking more of a pull approach in coaching.
doesn’t necessarily get those dopamine circuits firing and doesn’t necessarily get runs on the board when you are being judged on your results. So that’s a postulation that I
BreAnne Okoren (13:51.223)
And managers are already overwhelmed. If coaching is becoming their primary job because AI is doing this other strategy and technical work, what has to stop being their job then?
Jonathan Bowder (14:04.443)
Well, that’s the irony because people are promoted as subject matter experts. And if I’m an expert in Python or other coding languages or cybersecurity and the agentic operation can actually do that, my whole sense of worth, my status has somewhat gone to pot. And I hold a lot of security through my status. It echoes something that
David Rock was saying when he was in this chair last year, when people are divorced from their status as a subject matter expert, it undermines motivation. So not only are you telling me that the thing that made me a rock star by studying it for 20 years doesn’t matter anymore, you’re telling me to index up something which is a highly erudite, highly difficult, highly labor intensive skill called coaching. Like you have to be joking.
I’ll stick to what I know best, please, and I’ll stick to the dopamine hits rather than making that long-term investment in upskilling my team.
BreAnne Okoren (15:07.516)
Yeah.
BreAnne Okoren (15:12.926)
Yeah. And you know, if you if they turn to AI to say, Well, why can’t AI do this development coaching thing? And it can develop a beautiful plan, it really can in seconds. But a document is not development. It it doesn’t work the same way.
Joe Folkman (15:30.154)
And the AI doesn’t observe the interactions you have, nor can it look at the kind of a f reactions people have to you. A manager can do that. But they need to wanna do that and they need to kind of spend some time with people, help them understand their r their impact on others.
BreAnne Okoren (15:33.567)
No.
BreAnne Okoren (15:48.845)
So AI may support the coaching process, but it can’t, cannot care whether it, but it doesn’t care whether the person actually grows. And that’s why the manager is there. So the second finding that I want to get into today is not about a capability leaders undervalue. It’s about one they’re simply not doing very well. Joe, what did you find about inspiring and motivating others that needs to be addressed?
Joe Folkman (16:15.97)
You know, this is the most fascinating competency we’ve ever studied.
When we ask people which competency is most important, inspires and others is rated number one by the direct reports and beings in terms of importance. But when we ask people to rate the effectiveness on inspires and motivates, it’s rated nineteen out of nineteen. It’s the lowest rated competency. So everybody says it’s important, but nobody’s great at it. And here’s the dilemma.
Today, you know what people need is they don’t need a boss to be to give them orders, to tell them what to do. They need a boss who inspire them, who will bring energy to work, who who will make them care about what they’re doing. And that’s inspiration. And boy, it’s a lot harder competency to develop. Jonathan spent a lot of time on this, helping leaders be more inspiring.
BreAnne Okoren (17:16.374)
So Jonathan, why you had alluded to this earlier, but why is driving results so much easier than inspiring people?
Jonathan Bowder (17:25.975)
Inspiration is such a nuanced thing, Brianna. One thing I’ve taken from many things I’ve taken from working with Joe and Jack over the years was just how nuanced it is. So we can be inspired by subject matter expertise. We can be inspired by leaders who care. We can be inspired by integrity. As long as people have got just enough of them in charisma, we can want to run through walls for a variety of other reasons.
I think that we alienate people as a community by saying that to be inspiring, you’ve got to have jazz hands. You’ve got to be high energy. You’ve got to be Steve Jobs. And yes, that kind of inspiration is a thing. And it’s also a double-edged sword because we’ve seen too many snake oil salespeople and rogue executives. We never learned our lesson. We thought global crossing was going to be the last one. We thought that…
Joe Folkman (18:03.447)
Yeah.
Jonathan Bowder (18:23.387)
The Homes, Dave Arkell, you know, I’ve forgotten the name of it now, the little, you know, the little, little pinprick thing. That, that shenanigans. Yeah. So inspiration as charisma can actually be a double edged sword. So I don’t think we have enough educated conversations about what it is. But the other thing that really comes up strongly in your data, is I’ve got to care about what motivates people.
BreAnne Okoren (18:32.284)
yeah.
Jonathan Bowder (18:52.215)
and know that everyone in my team and organization is not my projection. And someone’s hot button and leather might be very different to someone else’s. So back to the problem with coaching, the problem with inspiring and motivating is there as well. It requires effort and it requires authentically caring about what’s important to the people you want to inspire and motivate. So they’re prepared to take action and be motivated when you’re not there wielding a big stick.
Joe Folkman (19:21.236)
AI can’t tell if we’re authentic.
Jonathan Bowder (19:25.035)
No.
BreAnne Okoren (19:26.752)
And so can AI though help people find meaning in their work then?
Jonathan Bowder (19:33.936)
I would say that of the fashion it can, but in a way that we’re probably not exploring. If I approach the AI age through a positive lens and go, AI can actually remove all of the tactical grunt work, which is stopping me from creating more enterprise wide value and really, really being on my sweet spot. If we want to invoke the CPO model from the Zenger-Foltman research,
BreAnne Okoren (19:52.246)
Mm.
Jonathan Bowder (20:03.349)
I can stay on that sweet spot more because AI is doing the grunt work. And we have between us, the people on this call probably run the extraordinary moments exercise a thousand times. And it’s always the same. One of the predicates of those moments when we’re pulling up trees that we will remember long into our retirement, one of the contingent factors was people. And AI doing a lot of the spade work, a lot of the proofing, a lot of the heavy lifting.
which means that we can actually lead and inspire and work with others to create extraordinary moments, I think is a really, really powerful and hopeful thing to look at. So I think, Breanne, in a roundabout way, AI can help us stay on personal mission and actually create more value by doing some of the low-value tasks for us.
BreAnne Okoren (20:56.106)
Yeah, and not just creating more and more tasks, but deciding to use that time for people. I love that distinction. So the third capability that you talked about in this research is trust. Joe, what happens to employees when trust in their manager is low?
Jonathan Bowder (21:04.794)
Right.
Joe Folkman (21:16.17)
Well, forty five percent of the employees are thinking about quitting.
Only twenty-two percent are willing to give extra effort and twenty-seven percent they wouldn’t recommend this organization as a good place to work. Now, if trust is high, eighteen percent, only eighteen percent are thinking about quitting, fifty-seven percent are willing to give more effort, and sixty-two percent would recommend the organization as a good place to work. So it’s a flip-flop, it’s huge, but that trust is
so important.
BreAnne Okoren (21:55.063)
And Zenger Fockman’s research identifies three foundations of trust that we’ve talked about a lot on this podcast. But for those who are first listening, first is positive relationships, the next is consistency, and the last is expertise. But leaders cannot confidently explain exactly what AI will do to every person’s job. No one, no one really knows that. Jonathan, how can leaders build trust when right now, honestly, they cannot offer certainty?
Jonathan Bowder (22:27.277)
I think showing vulnerability in a non-morkish and assertive way will actually build trust. So I don’t know whether AI is coming for our jobs. I don’t know whether AI is coming for us. All that I can tell you is that this is our strategy and this is how you fit and this is how you actually fit into it. So I think showing assertiveness and showing that as a leader you are prepared to control the controllables.
and to be as frank as you can and avoiding the slippery slope of over-promising. Because I mean, one of the things that you found, Joan, it’s made it as a constituent question of displays, high integrity and honesty, is somebody that actually says something that they can’t follow through on. So I think for very good reasons of wanting to be compassionate and caring, it would be very easy to offer a metaphorical hug and reassurance, which we can’t actually.
follow through on all that we can do is be very transparent about what we’re to actually leverage the opportunities in AI and to actually mitigate some of the risks.
BreAnne Okoren (23:38.849)
I love that distinction. in the article you both wrote, you talked about consistency of character, not consistency of forecast. And I think that’s what we can be consistent on. I can’t tell you the future, but I I can be consistent because pretending to know what will happen may provide temporary reinsurance, but it destroys trust when the prediction changes.
So you also make an interesting comparison between a manager and an AI tool. A model gives us the same kind of answer at nine in the morning and five in the afternoon. It does not become impatient. It doesn’t get distracted or have a bad day. what can a leader learn when employees appear to trust AI, the machine, more than management, when they go to AI to talk about their grievances and they don’t want to talk to you? That’s happening.
Jonathan Bowder (24:33.723)
It’d be fascinating to get Joe’s take on this, but yeah, the bot could become the mirror. If it’s dependable, if it is managing its emotional makeup, if it’s giving you as non-skewed an answer as possible, that’s probably feedback that you are not as predictable at managing your emotional makeup. There’s a time in the day where it’s not wise to knock on your door or come over to your desk. So I think
The extent to which people are using technology is feedback for us as managers and leaders to step up. But how do we uptick the unique things that make us human? The fact that we can mediate, the fact that we can show genuine empathy, the fact that we can have a shared epiphany with someone. And at the moment, there is no model on the planet that can create the oxytocin release.
when a coach and coachee or an employee and line manager have a mutual breakthrough or achieve something that will be a career highlight for both of them. So I think manage the risk and take the feedback if people are relying on the technology, not you, but also double click on what you’ve got going for you as a human and be fascinated to get Joe’s take on that as well.
BreAnne Okoren (25:59.905)
Yeah.
Joe Folkman (26:00.972)
You know, when AI tells you you’ve done a good job, it doesn’t mean much, right? It’s like you know. When your manager sees it, when your manager talks to you about it, when your manager expresses that, that’s the human part of this whole thing. And AI cannot do that. And it’s not the same thing. It really isn’t.
Jonathan Bowder (26:07.429)
Right.
Joe Folkman (26:22.988)
So it’s fascinating when we looked at people who were good at champions change, innovation, and technical expertise. We find that the strongest competencies that emerged out of that was strategic perspective. Hey, we know where we’re going, we can see the future, establishing stretch goals, challenging people to do more, upping the game, communicating powerfully, keeping people informed, and most importantly, inspired.
and motivates others, kind of creating that energy and that that desire for people to do more. I mean those are the four competencies that really make a difference in this AI age for humans to do.
BreAnne Okoren (27:08.97)
Who am I actually developing? And can I name what that person is currently working to improve? Second, what am I giving my people beyond a target? Have I helped them understand why their work matters? And third, what did I promise my team last month and did I do it? So think through each of those. I’m so glad we were able to have you come on.
Jonathan, is there any other closing thoughts about AI or since you’ve done this research, that you want to share with our audience?
Jonathan Bowder (28:15.743)
one thing and that’s that the playbook that you just shared Joe is not a new playbook. So those competencies have always been the predicates of extraordinary leadership, which is comforting. The only thing that’s changed in our opinion is the cost of getting them wrong. So let’s double click on what we already knew was truth in the knowledge that it will work even in this age of intense technological disruption.
BreAnne Okoren (28:33.524)
Mm.
Joe Folkman (28:47.32)
That’s wonderful.
BreAnne Okoren (28:49.077)
Anything you want to add, Joe?
Joe Folkman (28:51.16)
You know, this has been I mean Jonathan is he is a renaissance man. He he kind of observes the world, he sees it differently than most, but he sees it better than most. And so Jonathan, thank you so much for kind of adding your insights and and boy, as you finish that book there’s gonna be a lot of people waiting to read it.
BreAnne Okoren (29:19.755)
Mm-hmm.
Jonathan Bowder (29:20.443)
Thank you very much, Joe. I’m always looking for a forward writer or I have a forward writer in mind. watch this space.
BreAnne Okoren (29:28.394)
Ha ha ha.
Joe Folkman (29:32.258)
Would be an honor.
Jonathan Bowder (29:33.871)
Thank you.
BreAnne Okoren (29:33.889)
You’ve been listening to the 90th percentile insights backed by data. If this conversation gave you something to think about, follow the show and share this episode with a leader navigating AI transformation. And we’ll see you next time.
