turn communication breakdowns into trust-building moments.
sponsored by 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 pro membership, where accounting pros go pro – see today’s special offer
subscribe to 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 podcasts anywhere: apple, google, spotify, iheart, deezer, amazon music and audible, player fm, audacy, gaana (india), and boomplay (africa).
transformation talks
with donny shimamoto
center for accounting transformation
in the latest episode of transformation talks, host donny shimamoto, cpa.citp, cgma, leads a powerful discussion on “assumed discrimination”—the cultural collisions that happen when others project bias onto someone’s words or actions.
exclusively for pro members. log in here or 2022世界杯足球排名 today.
joining him are arianna campbell, coo of boomer consulting; ed kless, co-founder of threshold and co-host of the soul of enterprise; and amy welch, apr, cae, mission advocacy strategist with the center for accounting transformation and svp/executive producer for 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间.
the episode begins by reframing how we talk. “discussion” implies conflict, while “dialogue” is about listening. “the origin of ‘discussion’ is literally ‘to strike,’” says kless. “but dialogue means ‘twin telling.’ that shift in mindset is everything.”
the group reflects on the high-stakes environment we’re living in—where every post, message, or comment can be misread. campbell encourages listeners to “stay curious” when encountering perceived slights. “that pause gives you the space to choose grace overreaction,” she adds.
welch brings a pr perspective: “in crisis communication, perception is reality. but if your brand is grounded in authenticity, you can weather misunderstandings with integrity.”
the trio also addresses the anxiety that comes with public misinterpretation. shimamoto shares a moment when he nearly withdrew from online platforms after a misread post. welch and campbell both suggest journaling or writing unsent messages as a technique to self-regulate before engaging in difficult dialogues.
perhaps most importantly, the conversation reminds us that disagreement isn’t a failure. “we can sit in that discomfort and come out better,” says kless. “it’s not about winning—it’s about understanding.”
ultimately, the message is clear: in a time of cultural friction, genuine dialogue, curiosity, and trust aren’t just soft skills. they’re leadership tools—and the future of inclusive communication.
9 key takeaways
- dialogue is about mutual understanding, not winning an argument.
- assumed discrimination often stems from unspoken inferences.
- curiosity is a powerful tool for de-escalating misunderstanding.
- pausing before reacting leads to better, more thoughtful responses.
- trust and consistency are essential to creating safe spaces for communication.
- social media amplifies anxiety—sometimes, it’s okay to step back.
- a public relations strategy rooted in authenticity can sustain your reputation.
- venting privately (journaling, writing) helps prevent public missteps.
- it’s possible—and necessary—to hold space for respectful disagreement.
transcript
(transcripts are made available as soon as possible. they are not fully edited for grammar or spelling.)
donny shimamoto 00:41
welcome everyone back for another episode of transformation talks, where we are really looking at the changes that have to occur in firm culture, or i should say, in an organization’s culture, and how are people successfully navigating these transformations? so what we’re looking at today really ties into a lot of the issues, and perhaps, if you heard one of our previous ones, the lack of dialog that is going on with some of the what are transformational issues, particularly related to culture. so with that, we’ve got a great panel today. so i’m going to ask each of them to introduce themselves. i’m gonna start with my team member here, amy, so amy, if you wanna start us off there,
amy welch 01:29
sure. hi. my name is amy welch. i am a mission advocacy strategist for the center for accounting transformation and the senior vice president and executive producer at cpa, trendlines,
donny shimamoto 01:42
thank you. amy. ariana,
arianna campbell 01:44
yes, i am ariana campbell coo and shareholder at boomer consulting.
ed kless 01:52
and ed, hi, i’m ed kless. i am co founder with ron baker of the new organization threshold, where we like to transform the transformer. so this is very like meta for me.
donny shimamoto 02:05
i just saw your other episode on solar enterprise about the meta consultants, and i was like, oh, i gotta go listen to that, because first time i’ve ever been called a meta consultant. and i think actually, all of us are actually meta consultants. so it’s very interesting in that all right, so wanted to start with just an explanation of the show inspiration. and this is one where, with everything that’s been going on, particularly in the dei space, and this is not just recently, but it’s actually been building up, i think quite a bit over time, is seeing this increasing divide between people and people in different positions. and of course, everything that’s going on with the administration is now starting to perhaps amplify some of the conflict or the divide, as we kind of see it. we did another podcast if you haven’t already seen that, about how to have these types of political conversations within an organization. so today, what we really wanted to look at is, how do you have these types of conversations or deal with what ends up being sort of assumed discrimination in more of the external setting? and again, part of the inspiration from the show is all all of us actually have been involved in several situations where there was a assumed kind of discrimination or assumed bias that was read into something that was said. and really what we wanted to do is look at and say, hey, what’s the right way to kind of approach these things, or maybe not right? what’s the better way to approach these types of things? what’s the right mindset to come into these things with and really look at how can we, again, kind of start bridging and having more dialog around these things, rather than everyone, kind of pitching their their their flag on one side, and creating a further divide as we go into things. so with that, i think we’re going to start with ed, because you’ve heard me purposely using this word dialog, and in our prep, ed was like, well, yeah, do you know the difference between discussion and dialog? and so ed, why don’t you start us off with that?
ed kless 04:20
sure, sure. and just a quick nod to my dad, who taught me this concept. i mentioned, my dad was a part time latin teacher, and we had a very interesting childhood, growing up in that similar to my big fat greek wedding where, you know, the one of the running gags says, give me a word, and i’ll tell you how the origin is greek, you know. and he goes on, it was like that in my house, but only latin, which was made for weird dinner conversation, but it pretty well on my sats, because of it was helpful. but one of the things that he talked about was this, this notion of dialog versus discussion, and they’re often used similarly. you hear dialog far less, but discussion. comes from a latin root word kusa, a, which means to hit or to strike, or to shake or to strike. and there are several other english words where you see this reflected a little bit much more pronounced. so in percussion, concussion, the same c, u, s, s means this hit strike, right? so a concussion is an industry sustained with striking your head. a percussion is an instrument where the sound is made by striking. well, the discussion, the di means twin and it means a twin striking, or twin shaking. so if you imagine what we’re trying to do in a in a discussion is, is shake each other till you until you get it right. dialog, however, is greek in origin, and it means a twin or with another telling, a twin telling. so what we’re doing there is we’re having a listening of each other. so what we’re trying to do is get deeper and deeper into the listening aspect of it versus the telling aspect of it, right? so the twin twin conversation, i think, is really important for people to take away from this idea of a dialog versus a discussion. and i think those are two modes of conversation, right? i think there are times when you appropriately go into discussion mode. that’s okay, but in certain situations, you want to make sure you’re in this dialog mode where you’re amping up your listening capability as opposed to your response capability. i think
donny shimamoto 06:32
ariana that that actually bridges well to something that you brought up too, which was this concept of having genuine curiosity.
arianna campbell 06:41
yeah, and i love that explanation that you gave, and i think it really brings some clarity to our intent when we’re having conversation. so it’s so easy to make assumptions about a lot of different things, right? we tend to inherently think about things, maybe from our perspective. but one thing that i know, that i’ve found really valuable is this whole idea of just staying curious and really being genuinely curious after you hear someone say something, especially if you find yourself really being reactive to that, and instead of jumping straight to the reaction, having some curiosity and also incorporating some of stephen covey’s guidance of speaking to understand and then be understood. because i think that we can create more connection as humans when we’re able to take a pause and just step back and have that dialog. but in order to do that, you have to actually create the space for it, right? because if you’re having a discussion, which is that you know shaking and striking, and you’re only waiting for the other person to be quiet so that you can say your point, that’s not coming from a place of curiosity. and i think we’re seeing more and more of that now, not only in the space that you mentioned during the setup and the dei conversations in space, but i think we’re seeing it just in media as a whole, not just limited to the dei space. i think we are that causes us to kind of learn bad habits when it comes to discussion versus dialog, so especially when things are more high stakes, as they often are, in conversations around dei i think that leading with staying curious, not in a way where we’re going to accept any disrespect or take the onus off of the person who’s delivering the message, but to not just immediately jump into being reactive, but again, to just stay curious.
donny shimamoto 08:40
what are some of the tips that you would you would have for this? you know that, because there is this reaction, and one of the other video that i’ve watched as a video that talked about intention versus impact, and it it talks about, well, actually it was, it was interesting, because it talks about the impact is actually more important than the intention, which i actually did an exercise with my whole team, and we actually ended up disagreeing with with the video’s premise, in that sense, but it really looked at it and the way that the video was positioning it was it went well, if you impacted me negatively, then you’re automatically in the wrong and i am allowed to react is sort of the thing there. there are also things that i think we do react to, especially when it hurts us personally. and how can we better manage those types of reactions?
arianna campbell 09:36
i think one of the biggest things to do is pause, right? i think that there are a lot of good things that can happen by emotions getting stirred up, and it can lead us to action. and i think that those parts are important, but we want to make sure that our action is rooted in the right space and the right reaction. so i think that pausing is. is one of the first places to start. typically, if we’re running those high emotions, that’s, you know, an immediate indication. i think another way is to try to see things from the other person’s perspective. and i think that this obviously is different depending on the level of trust that you have with a person. so we’re a lot more quick to extend grace to someone who we know, because you’re like, even if they said something or think they couldn’t have possibly, you know, meant that, because i know so and so, or this is my, you know, family member, or whomever you may be referencing. and so when there’s a high trust relationship, we tend to extend a lot more grace. so really thinking about it from the other person’s perspective, and saying, are there other things that you know may that i should take into account? but i think the most important thing gets back to what ed said, and have some dialog, like have a conversation with a person, instead of just assuming which is the point of this conversation here, because we all know the adage of what happens when we assume and by actually having a dialog with that person, that’s going to be the only way that you find out what their intent actually was. and i find that even if it’s something that made me upset, and in fact, i think it’s even more important when it’s something that made me upset, to have that dialog with that person, and they’re either going to confirm or deny how i felt by, you know, the way that i received whatever they said. either they’re going to be like, yeah, i meant what i meant, and i said what i said, and then i can decide what to do from there, or we’re able to have a conversation that creates more understanding. either way, i feel like we’re all better because of it.
ed kless 11:43
i think there’s a difference between infer and imply too, that we have to, we have to take into account as well. i mean, inference is yours, right? you own your own inferences. you infer what somebody else says, and then you’re, you’re going up this, this chain of, well, did, did he or she mean that? i don’t know. you know, i don’t know, right? so you’re inferring, implying is when it’s like, this subtle i’m trying to drop this hint in my conversation with you, and the speaker is the one who is implying something. those are very nuanced perspectives. and sometimes you can someone can be implying something that somebody else infers completely differently this. that’s the weird thing about those. and i think you’re absolutely right. ariana, what you want to do is back off and say, let me, let me just confirm this, maybe, and remain curious and ask, let’s see if we can come to some common ground. i think the big, a lot of the biggest things, is often just definition of terms. are we even defining this word the same way, because if we’re not what the analogy i use for that is we’re playing tennis court on two different courts, right? i’m serving to you and thinking that i’m getting an ace every time i hit it, but you’re on a completely different court, serving back to me and thinking you’re getting an ace every time you hit the ball. it’s crazy, well,
arianna campbell 12:59
and ed, it made me think about, you know, it truly does turn into a monolog when you’re not bringing that other person into a discussion, and you’re just over there, monologuing with that internal voice in your head. and that can, many times, not take you to a place that’s really going to be productive. and you obviously can’t interpret, you know, the other person’s point of view. but i will still stand by. i think there are some situations that are really egregious where we do need to have some, you know, righteous indignation, and we are seeing more of that occur, but we don’t want to let that overshadow the fact that there can be still the presence of a lot of assumptions when it comes to what someone says based on the fact that we’re seeing much more in our face, things that maybe we wouldn’t have seen before. so then you start assuming that there’s a lot more negative intent than maybe what they’re what they’re actually is as you’re hearing things, since we seem to be on this repeat loop of negativity, i
amy welch 14:00
think ed’s definition or description of the of the i think i’m getting an ace every time i lob something over at you. you think you’re getting one every time you lob something back at me. is the very definition of a social media fight. people just like kind of keep posting back at each other, and one of the things i wanted to question is we always say, don’t assume. don’t assume, but is it still safe and good to assume good intentions on the part of the person with whom you seek to have a dialog and a better understanding?
arianna campbell 14:39
for me, i think it’s about staying curious. i don’t think it’s necessarily about assuming good or, i guess i would have to say, at the same time, bad intentions. it’s for me, it’s just staying curious and not assuming at all. i know that it made me feel a certain way, so i need to stay curious and investigate that further. i. do think amy, it’s a good point that you make, because it’s reflective for me, because i do think that i’ve gotten further away for just from just maybe taking things at face value, but in a positive way, where it’s making me more curious. because i personally think that we need to just have a better understanding and give a person, give people an opportunity to have that dialog,
ed kless 15:24
amy, jump on something and make a further point of what you were just talking about, and you use the word repeatedly, which i really appreciate, is i got to a point where i i was using the word feel when i meant think, and to the point where i have literally put in a text replacement that if i, if i type the word feel, it changes it to think. and now sometimes i do need to go back and correct it, because it is field is correct, right? but i wanted to be so mindful of that that i put that automatic text conversion in there, because most of the time, still, to this day, when i type feel i’m like, no, you mean think, don’t you?
arianna campbell 16:09
that’s it. yeah, that’s an interesting distinction. and i think since many of the dei conversations are high stakes, we immediately go to feeling instead of thinking first. and so that’s another great way to have a check and balance on where you’re centered in that moment. is it i talk to my kids about, is it facts or feelings? is it facts or feelings? both are valid, but we need to know how we’re going to react. are we reacting based on facts or feelings? because those are two different, two different outcomes, potentially,
donny shimamoto 16:42
when ed you used the word mindful, which i think is really important too, and then, and i getting that space is also ariana has mentioned that, and that’s one of the things i’ve been trying to do a lot of, is you because you get that reaction and then that pause, which is that taking that mindful moment to say, okay, wait. am i? am i? am i thinking? what am i feeling? why am i responding in this way? and that’s really that differentiation for us, as well as humans, from the kind of your more basal animals, right? it’s this, the cerebral cortex, that allows us to pause and go. it’s not fight or flight. what’s really going on here? why am i reacting in this way and correct, potentially correct our behavior from causing problems for the problem?
ed kless 17:32
part of it is many of us are just so busy all of the time that it’s difficult to get into a mindfulness frame. but what i think it does, it’s also a reflection of something that’s very important to me, which is this notion of individual and collective anxiety. anxiety is interesting is that anxiety and creativity are always inversely proportional to each other. the more anxious you are, the less creative you can be and and there’s no way to turn on creativity by saying i need to be creative now, because that actually just makes you more anxious, right? so what you need to do is you actually need to reduce your level of anxiety, and that to in order to be creative, it sounds weird. you don’t turn on creativity. you actually reduce anxiety. that’s that’s the way that it’s supposed to work, and that the greatest example of this is captain chesley sullenberger, the guy who landed the plane in the hudson river. remember him, right? so he was they there’s an interview with him on 60 minutes, and katie couric asks him, says, captain sullenberger, did you pray? and he says, no, ma’am, there were 142 people behind me taking care of that right. he said my job was to, and i love this phrase, successfully crash the aircraft, not land, because he said landing was not a possibility, but successfully crash the aircraft. and i love that, because i think that’s one of the things in our businesses we need to look at, where this becomes very practical, is what are the things in our business, in our lives, that we need to successfully crash and that can
arianna campbell 19:17
take a completely different approach. and that’s a really good that’s a really good point,
ed kless 19:23
yeah, and i think that that we’ve heard it different ways. like, is it like, what start, stop, continue, is another variation of this, right? what are we going to stop doing? but instead of thinking is just stop, what are you going to successfully crash? and then your personal life too? like, what do i need to let go of in order to embrace what donnie was talking more mindfulness, because that’s in order to create space for that, you got to let go to something else, which is usually anxiety.
arianna campbell 19:50
yeah, that’s a really good point. and amy, you made a good point earlier about social media and the ping pong that happens, which i think contributes to. to the anxiety and the lack of mindfulness, because you see other people are commenting, commenting, commenting, and you’re trying to keep it cool, but like, you’re like, i agree with that, and that too, and that too. so i think oftentimes, just stepping away, i think about back in the 1900s when i was in school, you wrote the notes and you passed them to people. and there were often times where you had crafted a note because you were so fired up, but you had to wait to give it to that person, and by the time it was time to give it to that person, you had torn it up or thrown it away. because when you read back through it, you were like this, yeah, i was really i don’t even understand how i was feeling in that moment. i’m good now, and we don’t have that space naturally created for us to pause, especially when emotions are high and again, i don’t say it is not excusing those who are putting out inflammatory things in those extreme situations, but we do have to think about how that pulls through to our more interpersonal relationships, and how do we create that space to pause, to give ourselves a moment, to get mindful and grounded, and then to go and encourage that dialog instead of discussion?
donny shimamoto 21:13
ariana, actually, you raise a really good technique there too, which is effectively venting or responding by writing something out, but maybe not necessarily posting it. so whether you sit there on your computer or your phone, or if you’re a journal or i’m a journaler, journal it, and then that might get all that angst and reaction out, and then you can kind of take that step back and go, okay, i vented. now. what am i really gonna say?
arianna campbell 21:44
you’re right. sometimes that does feel good. just to get it out, make sure that you haven’t put the person’s name in the address send thing, or that you don’t hit the wrong button on social media, because that is bad, bad, bad. or
amy welch 21:57
how many of us said, and when we’re driving to work or on a way, somewhere, like, oh, i should have said, i should have said, and then, for some reason, internally, you’re having that argument with this person in the same area. yes, you’re in your head. you’re winning it in that argument, it
arianna campbell 22:18
is so true. nothing like that distance monolog, where you’re just you’re just killing it. i know we all have those for sure,
ed kless 22:26
ones that drive me crazy, the ones when i lose to myself,
donny shimamoto 22:37
coming back to the anxiety. so that was something that i experienced after one of these incidences inside and amy, i’m going to turn to you because, you know, amy again, is part of my team, and as my pr person, i went to amy and i was like, amy, i don’t think i ever want to post again. i just don’t, because i just don’t want to run the risk of that. so i’m curious your thoughts, because that might be some other people. they’re like, oh, i don’t want to be in that fray.
amy welch 23:04
what do you well, i think first of all, as as a colleague and a friend, i was hurt for you that you were experiencing that anxiety and for something that i knew deep in my heart that was like you were being accused of a position that i knew you didn’t have or take, or of thoughts that i knew you didn’t believe. so i think probably just having the time for us to kind of talk through it, and what are the pros and cons of either moving forward in this direction or moving forward in this direction kind of allowed us to explore what we felt was the best way to rectify the situation, without necessarily there being a certain conclusion or satisfactory conclusion on anybody’s end, just simply acknowledging that this was a misunderstanding, and maybe later we can get back to it. but rather than, you know, we went through, i think we stepped through all the different you know, options that we could do. but in the end, we’ve decided that the best thing was simply the one that made the most sense for your own anxiety and mental health, and just kind of respected all the boundaries of everybody that was involved as well,
donny shimamoto 24:31
but trying to relate that a little bit so that others can imply can apply it. it’s a it’s the same concept of taking a step back, but using someone else as a reflection point,
amy welch 24:44
right for sure, and specifically, if you have somebody on your team who does have a background in communications or public relations or even crisis management, you know, god forbid that should be somebody need. but if you do, then that would be a. person to try to bounce the ideas off of and walk through intended and unintended consequences. and it’s also a good idea, probably, for other people to be involved that see other aspects of a business, particularly if it’s a business related incident that impacts your your image. and i think everybody wants to maintain a pretty spotless image, so when the threat of something that could negatively impact your image comes up, it’s real easy to panic and be anxious, because it’s not what is the saying, it’s marketing is what you pay for, and pr is what you pray for. well, the reason why it’s because it is very difficult bad. pr is kind of difficult to overcome. so it’s, you know, you have to kind of walk through those things and make sure that you’re exploring well this, you know, this audience, you know, your primary, secondary and tertiary audiences. how are they perceiving this? how does this affect them? and then trying to make sure that you’re not overcompensating in such a way that is, oh, me think thou does protest too much kind of either. so you know, you have to kind of get a healthy balance there. but i do recommend meeting with people on your team who have that outlook and do not see things the exact same way you do, so that you’re open to other possibilities of interpretation.
arianna campbell 26:30
yeah, and amy, all those are that’s a really good insight. and i think making sure that while you’re doing all of that, that you don’t lose your authenticity, right? because your brand should already be authentic when we’re looking at this through the business lens of some of the things that can happen when either we say something that we didn’t intend to land the wrong way, or we’re responding to something that didn’t land the wrong way. i think authenticity helps to build trust. and if you’re consistent in who you are and what your brand is that that also helps with the because you want to again, and i keep going back to the word you want to be able to keep the door open for dialog, right, and not have that situation shut that door down.
amy welch 27:16
i agree. i’m sorry. i’m writing down the notes for
ed kless 27:22
i yeah, the other side of it too is, i think, i think that we also, all of us collectively, i think need to just get better at being in the state of disagreement with somebody.
speaker 1 27:32
yes, yeah, right. it’s,
ed kless 27:35
it’s okay, you know, reminded of is, there’s a famous new yorker cartoon, and it’s these, these, these dogs are in business suits, are sitting around, they’re at a bar. and the caption is, it’s not enough that we succeed, it’s that cats must also fail. i’m like, well, it’s okay if we have have differences on something. and by the way, i don’t even, i don’t like the phrase agree to disagree. i came up a long time ago something i think a little bit better, which is what i will agree is that one of us is wrong and just doesn’t know it. and i’m, and i’m willing to, and i’m willing to say that it might be me.
donny shimamoto 28:25
okay, i like that. i like the addition there, if you stop,
ed kless 28:29
yeah, and i’m willing to say that it might be me. i right. so, but because, if you think about it, that there’s usually, there’s a dichotomy is going to be, you know, one right or wrong. but anyway, so yeah, i think i just can we, can we be more at peace and less anxious with being in disagreement with somebody? and, yeah, okay,
arianna campbell 28:51
that’s a that’s a really good point, because i think that we do seek to have the other person, like, agree with what we were saying. that’s our intent, like we talked about earlier, and when that’s your intent, that’s only going to cause further disagreement. there is no resolution there. if we have different perspectives, then we’re creating more division. donnie, like you talked about from the very beginning, and having different perspectives is actually really beneficial, instead of ending up in an echo chamber, so when we can find and have more discussions again that are respectful and, you know, well intentioned, but that doesn’t mean that they end with, we’re all, you know, on the same side and think the same things, because we don’t want, we don’t want that necessary
ed kless 29:37
life would be boring. it would be be pretty boring, and this was a really interesting psychological study. and i forget where this came from. i have it somewhere in a note someplace, but we like it when people like what we like, but we really don’t like it when people. don’t like what we don’t like, right? really like we’re much, much more okay with well, i if you tell somebody, i really want to see this movie, and i really liked it, and then they come back and say, well, i really didn’t like it all that much, right? we’re like, okay, we can, we can deal with that. but if we say, oh, this movie was absolutely often they’re like, no, i thought it was pretty good. oh no. what do you do? you’re absolutely wrong. so we don’t like it when people don’t like what we don’t like. it’s weird. that is the more intense emotion, yeah,
arianna campbell 30:31
and that is, i’m still rolling that one over in my head, and while agreeing with you that you’re right with that example that you gave, and that just creates more discourse. and imagine trying to have that conversation. over social media, going back and forth
ed kless 30:46
about an important issue, not a movie.
arianna campbell 30:50
yes, it does add in extra complexities, but to the point about, you know, having the different perspectives and not necessarily agreeing. that’s where inclusion comes in as well. so, you know, we’re talking about diversity, equity and inclusion, and we can also add in belonging, that that’s an important part of it. we want diverse perspectives. we want to create an inclusive environment where people can feel like they belong, you know, in our personal lives and in our businesses as as well. and so that means that when you’re bringing together people from diverse perspectives, weren’t backgrounds, we’re not all going to have the same perspective. so i think it’s important to remember that we don’t always have to agree with each other.
donny shimamoto 31:35
i like that you bridged all of that together the we actually have two different values in our firm. one is individuality. we purposely didn’t actually have inclusion, because we wanted to recognize each person as themselves and their ability to bring them their true selves to work. and the other one is trust, which you mentioned earlier, and trust is created with i think it was ed saying that, actually, i think it was ariana saying that it’s consistency of behavior and and kind of coming, you know, basically again, kind of being yourself and being authentic to yourself. and if we can create an environment where everyone feels like they belong and can be them, be their true selves, bring themselves to work while respecting everybody else at the same time, then that’s where we’re going to be more successful, because we’re not trying to create the borg where everyone is exactly the same and in the hive mind, because it is this diversity of perspective that really brings success absolutely so i hope all of you listening have heard now we’ve defined the secret to success in really looking at different perspectives, having thoughtful, mindful conversations with each other, where we’re really seeking to understand first and then seeking to be understood later, and doing all of this with genuine curiosity and affording others grace. so i thank you, all of you for being on the show with us today, and i hope to see all of you that are out there on another episode of transformation talks. thanks everyone.