Navigating Conflict

NICOLE TORRES: You’re listening to Women at Work from Harvard Business Review. I’m Nicole Torres.

AMY BERNSTEIN: I’m Amy Bernstein.

AMY GALLO: And I’m Amy Gallo. We’re in an auditorium on the campus of Harvard Business School, and this is our mic check for the live episode we’ll be recording here in just a few hours.

AMY BERNSTEIN: By that time our guest, Linda Hill, will be onstage here with us to talk about navigating conflict at work. She’s a professor here at Harvard Business School and an expert on leadership and innovation.

NICOLE TORRES: So, the next thing you’ll hear is all of us and our audience, who are hopefully giving us a round of applause as we start the show.

[APPLAUSE]

NICOLE TORRES: Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us. It is pretty amazing to see this many people in a room who want to hear us talk about, of all topics, conflict at work. I usually — I go to lengths to avoid discussing conflict with my coworkers, but maybe that is why some of you are here too. Because we know that conflict, especially at work, can be very awkward to talk about. It can be a real pain to deal with. And we know that it can be particularly challenging for women to deal with too, for reasons that you’ll hear about in a minute. Fortunately, I have three women on stage with me who are going to help us all get better at this. My co-hosts, otherwise known as the Amys: Amy B., who I turn to advice for just about anything. Amy G., who literally wrote the book on managing conflict at work. And we are so excited to have Linda Hill here to share her expertise on conflict and how it connects to leadership and creativity.

NICOLE TORRES: OK. So, I’ve already admitted to everyone that I don’t like discussing conflict at work, and I would love to hear how each of you three deals with it. Let’s just go down the line. Tell us, do you tend to avoid conflict? Do you seek it out? What’s your approach?

AMY BERNSTEIN: I absolutely hate it. I don’t seek it out, but I would say I don’t avoid it in the workplace. I’m more like, you know, I deal with it when it comes up, or I hope I do.

AMY GALLO: If you ask my partner, he would say I seek it. [LAUGHTER] Which may be why I wrote a book about conflict. I would say I’m mostly a seeker in most situations. Sometimes I think I avoid just because it’s, I’m really worried about the relationship, but mostly I seek.

LINDA HILL: When I was first asked the question, I was asked, was I a conflict-avoider or a conflict-seeker. I was looking for some middle of the road, and I was not allowed to have it. So, I see that my two partners in crime did go down the middle, but I will say that I am a conflict-seeker.

NICOLE TORRES: Great. So you have a good mix of perspectives on stage. So, can we talk about what exactly it is that we are avoiding or we are seeking out? You know, in my mind conflict seems like it is often just in the eye of the beholder. Amy G., maybe you can tell us how you define conflict at work?

AMY GALLO: Yeah, it is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. We, Amy B. and I, could be in a discussion where I think we’re having an all-out fight, and she thinks we’re just having a normal conversation. So, it’s definitely — in the book I do try to keep it very simple and describe it as a situation where two or more people have needs, interests, goals that are interfering with each other. Now with that broad definition, you might be thinking, Well, I have conflict all day, every day at work. And the truth is you do. We all have these conflicts, and sometimes they don’t feel like a big deal, they just feel like the normal course of work; and sometimes they feel like a much bigger deal, and we can talk about that.

NICOLE TORRES: Great. Linda, why is it so important for leaders and especially women to learn how to deal with conflict at work?

LINDA HILL: Well, I used to teach the power and influence course at, uh, in the MBA program, which I very, very much enjoyed. And because I was teaching that, I found myself having to think a lot about political conflict. And so what I do know from research and other people’s research is that all organizations are inherently political. There are three primary sources of conflict in organizations: diversity, interdependence, and competition for scarce resources. And what I also know, if you don’t know how to navigate through that, those political conflicts, you will be powerless. And if you are powerless, no one wants to work with you. So for me, dealing with conflict is about being able to work through the politics and the conflict that’s inherent to organizational life to make sure that all of the stakeholders that you need to bring together are aligned to get done what needs to get done and to make sure that you have the resources you need to deliver on what you’ve promised your organization. So, if you can’t deal with conflict, if you can’t navigate that, you’ll be powerless. And if you’re powerless, the last thing I will say, we do know that people who are powerless are more likely to be corrupted because you cannot give voice to your values. And I think for women, it is quite important that we all are able to give voice to our values so that we can build a world and build organizations that we think are operating the way we think they should operate. So, for me it’s about making sure you can give voice to your values, you can contribute to the organization. And finally, as you know, I do research on innovation, and you rarely get innovation without diversity and conflict. So, if you can’t in fact deal with conflict, learn how to amplify differences, be comfortable with that, and then leverage those differences to come up with new and useful solutions for your organization, you won’t be able to be an innovator.

NICOLE TORRES: So, let’s move to some best practices or, you know, general principles for how to handle conflicts. Amy G., if you think you might have a conflict with someone else at work, what is the first thing you do?

AMY GALLO: So, it might be stressful, depending on your conception of conflict, how you feel, whether you’re an avoider or a seeker, and accept right away that that stress is normal. If we see conflict as a threat to our identity, to our needs, or our resources, it’s very likely we will go into a stress response. And we know from research, we do not make good decisions when we are under duress. So, the key is to try to calm yourself down. And I have a few ways I advise doing that. The very first thing is to think about the other person. Put yourself in their shoes. This helps to break the sort of narcissistic rumination most of us go into when we’re under stress, and think about what do you know about the other person? What stress might they be under, what pressure might they be under, what is it they want in this situation? And this is not out of generosity, although I certainly advocate for that as well. But this is more to help you gather information and unhook yourself from your interpretation of the situation, which is going to be one-sided.

The other thing I think you really need to do is think about what is your goal? And I’ll admit that most of my adult life and probably from my childhood too, anytime I entered a conflict, my goal was to be right. And that is not a good goal. Because if Linda and I show up to a conversation both trying to prove that we’re right, where do we have to go? So, really think about what is it that I really need from this conversation? Do I need to get this project just done and on budget? Do I need to preserve my relationship with this person I’m talking to? Do I need to just get out of this conversation and move on with my life? Right? What is it you’re actually trying to achieve? Because that’s going to really dictate what, how you decide to handle it.

NICOLE TORRES: Sounds better than crying. [LAUGHTER] That’s my approach.

AMY GALLO: But crying is OK. Crying is OK because that is a response to stress. And allow yourself to vent, right? Allow yourself to cry. Get angry. Just don’t do it with that other person right away. Right? [LAUGHTER] Do it with someone you trust. Find your work BFF. Cry in the bathroom if you need to, you know, write out everything you wish you could say to that person — not in an email because you could accidentally press send, [LAUGHTER] but, like, in a Word document that you then delete, and just get that all out so that you show up much more calm and confident when you get to the conversation.

NICOLE TORRES: OK. So once you’ve cried, once you’ve vented a little bit, and you’ve decided that you want to have this conflict conversation with the other person, Linda, can you tell us how you start that conversation?

LINDA HILL: Well, I usually do try to inquire. And I think what’s important is to separate out a person’s intent from their impact. So, I try to say, This is how I’m perceiving, or this is what I’m thinking. I might even say, I’m not sure — actually, if I’m really feeling like I want to handle this properly, I will say — and I have to confess I’m human, sometimes you actually want to irritate the person a little [LAUGHTER], but anyway, you know, this is the reality because of how you’re feeling about it. But you do need to calm yourself. You need to be aware of your goals. But what I try to say is, I presume that you are well-intended, and we are all trying to do, for instance, in my organization, what’s best for Harvard Business School. I presume that, but this is how I’m experiencing what you’re saying, or this is the impact of that decision or what you did on how I am feeling about what you’ve done. So, I try to own that this is the impact on me. And that could be quite separate from your intent. So, could you help me understand what you’re trying to accomplish because I think we’re both trying to — not what you’re trying to accomplish, but how you perceive what we need to be doing about this decision so that we can both do what’s best for Harvard Business School, or whatever it is that we have in common. So, I will presume that they’re trying to do what we have in common, and we always want to do that, but we may have different points of view about how to get there. So, I try to own, it’s my perception of what you’re doing and separate their impact from their intent. Because I think most of us really are well-intended and want to be trusted. So, what makes us defensive is when we suggest that we’re not well-intended, we can’t be trusted. But sometimes people will come back and they will tell you, you know, I have a whole different perception of what I’m trying to get done. So, I am actually stating my goal, right? Which may not be theirs. So they may come back and say to you, I have a different goal. And then I say, OK. Then you know it’s intent and impact that we’re having a conflict about.

AMY GALLO: Right. But you also stated the shared goal, right? We both care about doing what’s best for our company. And I think that’s a great place. Because if you think of the conflict as two adversaries, you know, going at it, you’re not, there’s not much place to go. But if you both have a shared goal you’re trying to achieve, then you’re at least on the same side of the table.

LINDA HILL: But sometimes people tell you they don’t share your goal.

AMY GALLO: For sure.

LINDA HILL: And those are more complicated. But I actually try to put it out there so they can tell me that the goal is different. This is the intent part is when — we have different goals, that’s a different kind of conversation than just how we achieve that goal. And those are sometimes harder conflicts to actually resolve.

NICOLE TORRES: When you’re in the process of having this conversation with someone, you’re trying to establish shared goals, you’re talking about intents and behaviors, how do you make sure that that conversation is productive and doesn’t turn into people yelling at each other or getting defensive?

AMY GALLO: I think the number one lesson in any of this is that you cannot control another person. I don’t know if you’ve all learned that lesson in life yet. [LAUGHTER] Despite my attempts. And so I think on the one hand, what you can control is your reaction. And what we do know is that people tend to react to your reaction. So, if you get worked up and upset and your voice starts getting constricted, you start yelling, it’s more likely the other person is going to respond in kind. So, really managing your own emotions is one of the most important things you can do in these conversations. And that’s where, you know, mindfulness techniques come in really helpful. You know, you’re not going to go, I have to breathe deeply because this is so stressful. [LAUGHTER] But you might take some quiet breaths, count them to yourself. You might, you know, whatever mindfulness exercise you use to stay out of the story that you’re telling yourself and stay present in the conversation. And I think never tell someone to calm down — [LAUGHTER]

LINDA HILL: That’s true.

AMY GALLO: I don’t think anyone in the history of the world has ever calmed down because someone said, You need to calm down.

NICOLE TORRES: Or chill out.

AMY GALLO: Or chill out. [LAUGHTER]

NICOLE TORRES: No chill out.

LINDA HILL: That is when you’re allowed to yell. [LAUGHTER]

NICOLE TORRES: So, moving into, like, resolving conflict, how do you — you’re having this conversation, you’re trying to, you know, figure out how to reach some shared goal. How do you make a plan for resolving whatever issue there is?

AMY GALLO: One of the things you want to do is take a tip from negotiation experts, which is, you’re listening for interests. You’re listening for what is it the person cares about. Know what your interests are. And at some point, hopefully when you feel like you’ve both shared your perspective, the assumptions you’ve made, you’ve heard what pressures they might be under, what they’re trying to achieve, you can then propose solutions that meet both your interests and theirs. Obviously that’s not always going to be possible, but that’s the goal is trying to come to a resolution — and be collaborative. Don’t you know, come in, I need A, and they say, I need B, and you just, A B, A B, right? No, you want to build on their ideas. So, if you propose a solution, they build on it, you continue to build on it. And keep in mind what your goal is because you still want to achieve that. But try to integrate both perspectives so that you’re reaching a resolution that everyone can walk away and feel good about.

AMY BERNSTEIN: So how does this conversation take place? Do you say, OK, stop, let’s make a plan?

AMY GALLO: Well, it depends. I mean, you can say, OK, I feel like we both heard each other. Should we talk about what we’re going to do going forward? Right? So sort of try to change the tenor of — now we’re focusing on how do we, how do we actually solve this? Sometimes you can even go in and say, We’ve got this issue to solve, let’s first upfront talk about what are the criteria that we’re going to use to decide when we’ve gotten to a resolution. You can even have that early on, but you’re going to have to have a trusting relationship with that person to engage in that upfront. But I think you do want to be explicit, like, OK, we’ve identified what the problem is, we know what we’re disagreeing about, let’s talk about how we’re going to solve it.

NICOLE TORRES: So, we’ve talked a lot about how to deal with conflict for yourself, but when you’re a boss and there’s conflict on your team, like, you have a certain role to play there too. And Linda, I’m wondering what are the signs as a manager that you’re avoiding conflict with your team that you should probably be addressing?

LINDA HILL: Well, one is if the team members aren’t actually doing what they agreed to do publicly. So, if we all sort of supposedly agreed to do XYZ and it’s not happening, you have to ask yourself why it’s not happening. Or if people have been very silent. So, you had a meeting and you all discuss some issue; there were some people who spoke up, but other people were silent. You can’t assume that that silence is consent, particularly when you find out afterwards they’re not actually doing what it was, they’re kind of procrastinating about it, or maybe whining to other people, or also if you see there’s a fair amount of gossip happening around your team. Gossip is often a signal of a problem, right? And again, people are going to gossip to some extent, but they don’t have any place else to take all of that. The other thing is that frankly, people escalate things back to you a lot. So, if you have delegated and you know, things come back to you as opposed to them deciding, then it sort of tells you something’s going on here that’s not right because I actually thought they’d make the decision. So, I think I would pay attention to that sort of thing. And you do, you know, you also can get, and some of you may have had this, I remember once when I was running a team, if you will, people tattle-taled. I mean this, I don’t know what other word, that’s how I felt about it. But they would come and tell you about, you know, so-and-so did X ,Y, Z, or they would, somehow it would slip in. So I, you know, when that happens, I tend to stop people and say, You know what, are you trying to tell me something, what is happening? So, just to stop that behavior because I think it’s a way again, because they don’t want to tell you necessarily, particularly if the person they have a conflict with or a person is someone that they think you prefer or you — you should not have favorites or someone who is favored in some way in people’s eyes. So, I try to pay attention to those kinds of comments being made. And then if things just aren’t getting done because they’re spending too much energy on other stuff, frankly.

NICOLE TORRES: Yeah, that’s helpful. So, we’re going to start taking questions in just a minute. If you have any burning questions or conflicts that you want to share with us, please line up at the mics. There are two here. So, until people start lining up, I’m going to ask Amy B., you manage people, how do you see your role in helping your team deal with conflicts?

AMY BERNSTEIN: You know, I think surfacing the sources of conflict. Some of it is personality, and I can’t deal with — you know, I can’t, I don’t presume to fix people. But you know, again, I really try to keep focused and keep my team focused on what we’re trying to accomplish here, what’s a win for us and for our organization. So, if I get wind of — it’s usually people not speaking directly to one another, I try to surface it as a conversation. Not, I hear you two are not talking to one another. It’s a conversation about — I’ll just use something from publishing — where are we on this article? And then make sure that everyone who needs to be in the room is in the room, and really focus that conversation on the article, the thing and not the people. So, the moment it gets personal, re-direct.

NICOLE TORRES: OK, I think we have a couple of people at the mics. Let’s start with you. Hi.

AUDIENCE 1: Hi. I’m wondering, can you go roundtable about the phrase “I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.” [LAUGHTER]

AMY GALLO: We’ve talked about this.

LINDA HILL: We did. There are times we should agree to disagree. So, that, I think Amy G. is right — what is your goal? Maybe it’s OK that you agree to disagree. Sometimes I’m too persistent and wanting, no, no, no, let’s work it through. And that’s why I actually decided I was a conflict-seeker as we were talking back there because I don’t like the “let’s agree to disagree,” but I’ve come to learn that that can be just fine. On the other hand, if agreeing to disagree won’t let us get the work done, then you have to sort of say, you know, this is one where we can’t agree to disagree because we need to have more alignment on this one because we have to collaborate and move forward. So, how are we going to manage this? We might do some horse trading, as they say. We’re not, you know, it’s not that we’re going to get win-win, but I don’t think we can agree to disagree.

AMY GALLO: Yeah. I think when that is, that phrase is meant to say, I don’t want to hear your opinion anymore, which is sometimes what it is, then I agree with Linda. You have to sort of keep digging into the content and make sure you — but you have to remember, you also don’t have to see the world the same way. And I think sometimes we think, if I don’t see this project the exact same way my colleague is, how are we going to solve this? And you don’t. You have to agree on the material issue, the decision that has to be made, how you’re going to move things forward. And if that requires you to disagree about a few things along the way, that’s fine. As long as you can do what you need to do.

AMY BERNSTEIN: Yeah, I agree. I think we’re going to have to agree to agree. [LAUGHTER]

AMY GALLO: I think we’ll agree to agree.

AMY BERNSTEIN: I mean, the question I always ask is, what’s a win here? I mean, a win is rarely that you share my views; a win is usually that we’re going to move forward on something together in a way that we agree on. You know, we may not agree on every particular, but what does it matter? It doesn’t matter.

NICOLE TORRES: Yeah. I’ve had to learn to agree to disagree sometimes, especially in moments where my goal has been to convince the other person that I’m right. And learning to agree to disagree has been a real saver there. OK. Go ahead.

AUDIENCE 2: Hi. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about defusing and resolving conflict when people are working remotely, and it might be happening over instant message or over a video conference, and it’s harder to read things like body language and cues and so many of the pieces that we know emotional intelligence is made up of but might be missing on a remote team and in our interaction.

AMY BERNSTEIN: Great question.

AMY GALLO: There’s some interesting research about that global teams, or dispersed teams, actually sometimes give each other the benefit of the doubt because they miss a lot of those cues. They don’t see you rolling your eyes on the conference call, right? They don’t. But because you don’t have a shared context, you often misunderstand and there’s just, the situation is just ripe for misunderstanding and miscommunication. So, I think to prevent conflict, you have to do a lot of over-communicating. And I don’t care how many emojis and exclamation points you include in your Slack message or in your email, it does not convey the same amount of nuance that a voice or a face does. So, if you can escalate the medium in which you’re interacting when things get tense or when you’re discussing something that’s difficult, that’s going to go so much better for anyone. So, pick up the phone. I know people don’t like to do that anymore, but pick up the phone, have the video conference, anything that encourages, that causes you and the other person to have empathy for one another is, it’s just going to make the conversation go better.

LINDA HILL: And actually related to that, there’s research that shows if you talk about your norms for what topics are legitimate to deal with in certain kinds of media. So, we know that conflict escalates more when you have, you know, email versus video conference versus whatever. So, I used to work with some global companies who wrote a little booklet out and they had a conversation about our norms, about what conversations in the end are we going to have to pick up the phone. And that is something to set up upfront, to have those conversations and never assume silence is consent. That is really dangerous to do in a virtual team. You actually, it really pays to go around and make literally everyone say something.

NICOLE TORRES: Thank you. I’ll take your question next. Hi.

AUDIENCE 3: Hi. I wanted to get your thoughts on sometimes getting the advice that you should make other people feel like it’s their ideas instead of yours as a conflict resolution or collaboration technique, especially for women, given there’s some research that part of what might hold them back in career growth is their ideas not being attributed to them.

NICOLE TORRES: Great question, thank you.

AMY GALLO: And I’ve seen this advice around insecure managers especially, that you, that helping to soothe their ego you often give, feed them ideas that they then think their own. And it’s actually a way to get your voice heard. I do think there are huge risks, if this is your primary tactic in managing conflict, especially as a woman, that you are not getting credit for your ideas. I think as a one-off situation to deal with someone who is particularly difficult, particularly insecure, it can be effective, but I certainly wouldn’t use it as a pattern.

NICOLE TORRES: Thank you. Hi.

AUDIENCE 4: Hi. How do you manage managers that like to avoid conflict, amongst their own teams as well, and rather separate people than bring them together to have a conversation?

LINDA HILL: So, this may be where there’s a little bit of agree to disagree, but you basically say to the boss, if we could get some decisions made about these issues, at least we could begin to move. But you need to know that all of us are feeling this and we don’t know whether to go this way and that way and we’re going to miss our — whatever matters to that manager. We’re not going to, we’re going to miss the quarter because there’s indecisiveness. Are we really, do you want us to make the decision? Because if we make it, this is what I’m thinking I’m going to do.

AMY BERNSTEIN: But you made it real. We’re going to miss the quarter. So, this is the consequence of this conflict, and that I think would be a pretty potent spur, right?

NICOLE TORRES: Thank you. So we are going to try to squeeze in two more quick questions.

AUDIENCE 5: I’ll be quick. Jackie Falla. I work in an industry that actually relishes conflict. And I appreciate your comments on having a shared goal. I’ve actually dealt with quite a few people that don’t seem to share the goal, and I found that particularly challenging. There seems to be a lot of power dynamics around that, which I’ve found myself ill-prepared to manage. Wondering if you have any thoughts when you know clearly the person is not about the organization and they’re really about themselves, how you navigate that particular case.

LINDA HILL: And does it involve money or just their own career or is it about…

AUDIENCE 5: I think it more specifically involves ego rather than money. But sometimes those things go hand in hand.

LINDA HILL: So, I think at that point, I get pretty straightforward with people like that, this is what you care about and this is what I care about. Now, is there a place where this could, where we can meet, your career ambitions and my ambitions for this organization and why I’m here? Where’s the overlap? And if you find that you’re in a situation where there isn’t enough overlap, I think it’s hard to win those circumstances, I think it’s hard to win. But if I really have concluded it’s about their career versus what’s best for the enterprise, and I point out to them the potential conflict: So, how would you like for us to resolve that? You know, OK, this is what you want, this is what we need, is there a way, is there a compromise that still lets us move forward, or is it a compromise where frankly you win and the organization loses. I think that kind of conversation is worth having in those circumstances because you’re really going to go in different directions and you’re going to be the loser. I don’t think you can win those.

AUDIENCE 4: Thank you.

NICOLE TORRES: Thank you. Hi.

AUDIENCE 6: So, we’ve talked a lot tonight about one-off conflicts but also pervasive conflicts. So, I’m thinking more about the pervasive state for this question. How do you distinguish conflict you can sit in and grow from over time versus conflict that’s just too unhealthy to continuously sustain. And are there any thresholds or indicators that stand out to you categorically between those two?

NICOLE TORRES: Thank you.

AMY GALLO: My personal take is that this is going to be, you’re going to have your own personal threshold about what you’re willing to sit with. So, if you’re a seeker, you might be more comfortable sitting with conflict for a longer period of time. And I think you really need to watch your own reaction to the ongoing conflict. Are you losing sleep over it? Are you talking about it constantly outside work? Is it affecting your ability to do your job? I think the key is, is this, you know, interrupting the normal course, or is this sort of something that’s uncomfortable but is not, you know, having physical, mental toll on you. And that’s something I really, really watch out for. And one of the things, certainly, you know, we all ruminate about things that happen at work sometimes, so if rumination is a cue, then we’re probably all having unhealthy conflict all the time. But I don’t think that’s the case. But one of the tests I also do is that when I tell myself, OK, you’ve thought about this enough, stop thinking about it for a day and then see how you feel. And can I do that? Like, can I, am I able to get some distance from it? I think that for me is a litmus test.

AMY BERNSTEIN: So, what if you can’t get the distance?

AMY GALLO: Well, yeah, well then if you can’t get the distance you want to address it more directly. You want to actually engage in it. But if you, if that person is not constructive, is not able, you’re not able to engage, you’re not able to reach conclusions, you’re stuck in this unhealthy dynamic, you need to figure out something different. And that might be decreasing the amount you work with them, that might be transferring to another department, right? Really trying to get distance from them so that you’re not continuing this unhealthy dynamic. It’s just, I think we could all agree it’s just not worth it to be in an unhealthy, toxic dynamic with someone.

AMY BERNSTEIN: And not all conflicts are going to get resolved.

AMY GALLO: Absolutely.

LINDA HILL: And there are toxic environments. And so I think that even goes back to the last question had been in my mind, if the person is truly only out for number one, you better watch out for number one because they will step on you. I mean, I just think that that’s real. So you, you have to look out for your interests. But I also think this goes back to not being powerless. You are not powerless. And if you’re in situations where you’re powerless, you can be taken advantage of. So, how do you over time gain some power so that you cannot be taken advantage of? And the most important source of power is expertise. Knowing something that no one else knows. Having unique knowledge, whatever it might be, and knowing that you have options. And it may be that you can’t get out of that situation right away because you have obligations or whatever it might be. Or you’re really committed to something you started. But try to figure out, how am I preparing myself to get out of this situation by creating more options, which is often about having some unique expertise or set of background or experiences so you can walk away and do something else. Because we can’t fix everything. That is for sure.

NICOLE TORRES: Thank you. We’re going to end on an empowering note. Thank you all so much for being here tonight and for asking such good questions. Thank you Amy B., Amy G., and Linda for teaching us so much. I also want to thank our producer, Amanda Kersey, who deserves the biggest shoutout for making the show what it is. [APPLAUSE] If you see her, please give her some snaps. I also want to say that the Women at Work editorial and production team is Amanda, plus Maureen Hoch, Adam Buchholz, Rob Eckhardt, Mary Dooe, and Cori Brosnahan. Thank you Sophie Wyman and the rest of the HBR events team for organizing this event. And thank you Harvard Business School Executive Education for sponsoring it. [APPLAUSE]