Ep 10: Where Corporate Culture Trumps Exec Comp

Speaker 2 (1m 59s): It’s for us, for me as a Canadian, a to go to the U S it’s a bit finicky city. When I say finicky, it’s the standard broken system where if I fly in, there’s no problem. But if I drive in, I have to be an essential worker, which doesn’t make sense, but that’s what it is. Now. I’m going to Korea on Wednesday and things are getting immensely easier there.

So for them, because I carry a UK passport, I can, I don’t need a business visa anymore. So they’ve dropped that need. And in terms of COVID stuff, I sent them my, you know, double vaccination from Florida and I skipped all the core team. Now I still need a COVID negative test to get in, but, you know, they’ve dropped all the kerfuffle.

Speaker 0 (2m 56s): Okay. And less kerfuffle equals more miles. Yes.

Speaker 2 (3m 2s): Yeah. Travel is getting easier and it’s, it’s, we’re also seeing it much more frequent. We’re getting lots and lots of clients now asking us to do onsite sessions. So everyone seems to have, you know, and there’s, they’re not, it’s not quite the same as it was. So for example, one of my teams will be in New Jersey city, Jersey city at the same time as I’m in Korea. But for that meeting about 80 or 90% of the executive of P there, but 10% have chosen not to attend.

So they’ll attend via zoom so that giving people permission to not have to attend if you don’t want to. And so on. So, you know, as north Americans were still starting out what the rule set is, but it certainly seems to be a progressive. And even in light, isle, Delta, people are saying, you know, the business of business is business. We have to get all this stuff. And if people choose not to get vaccinated and happened to catch COVID, that’s sort of on them and the business will do reasonable precautions, but we won’t do exceptional precautions like we were doing last year.

Speaker 0 (4m 13s): I want to, before we start rolling here and share with you, our finance leaders, I wanted to pluck out a few headlines from the news and get your reaction, Brett, the wall street journal this past week, published an article. Forget going back to the office. People are just quitting. Instead as the pedantic clouds lift, the percentage of Americans leaving employers for new opportunities is at its highest level in more than two decades, two decades, Brett.

And it’s becoming known as the great resignation or the mass resignation. Anyway, what do you, what do you think? What do you, what do you make of this?

Speaker 2 (4m 59s): Yeah, so they’re not calling that the mass resignation up here or something the, that the tilt, the skew we have is being a good socialist company. The country we’ve been paying people not to work. And so it’s been very hard for organizations to get people back to work because when you get paid the same or more for staying home, I go, Hey, let’s just stay home. You know, we’ve accrued more debt in the last two years than the country has this occurred through each of the world wars, actually both the

Speaker 0 (5m 35s): World wars. So respect every other year, 55% of Americans say they planted some new jobs in the coming days,

Speaker 2 (5m 44s): Huge amount of debt. And it’s all paying people out to go to work. So we’ve got a different problem, but in reflection of what you’re saying, our observation is that this has allowed people to reset their values and decided, you know, is my life worth going to work to get coven? And the extension from that is, is my life worth going to work just to do accounts receivable transactions or do I want to strive for something better?

So I think it’s been kind of a jolt to many people to allow themselves to reset their dreams and their careers. You know, when we, as you know, our whole business is about measuring people’s attitudes and getting quantitative assessments of engagement is what we’ve been doing. A lot of work on and research recently. And we don’t see a decrease in engagement. If anything, we see an increase, but maybe it’s because of what you’re saying. People are shifting to areas where they can feel better engaged.

Speaker 0 (6m 56s): Well, here was an interesting Reuters article two, that Google employees who worked from home could lose money. They might pay the people who want to stay home and work remotely at Google. And again, this was at a news report. I don’t think the company confirmed it, but this is something that they’re supposed to be considering at Google is this, what do you make of this, that remote workers? If you don’t, if you want to stay remote, you don’t want to come to the office. You might make less

Speaker 2 (7m 27s): Well our numbers. I mean the bottom line is we don’t, we get paid to achieve objectives. And the theory should be if I achieve more objectives or should get paid more, our observations from our client’s databases are engagements up. But in many cases, productivity is down while people are working from home. And so we’re paying people to be productive, not to be engaged.

And so although people seem to be making gains in their, you know, work-life balance, the corporate, isn’t seeing commensurate benefits to that. So you could see where that’s a reasonable choice. You could go, not a problem. You know, we can always hire more people, especially if you’re Google. People are, you know, lined up 400 deep for the chance, but, you know, we still need to get work done. So if I’m not getting the same effort of work per employee buck, then I better lever level set what that looks like.

But

Speaker 0 (8m 31s): 55% of Americans say they plan to seek new jobs in the coming 12 months.

Speaker 2 (8m 38s): It’s actually a brilliant segue to today’s conversation because today’s conversation is all about what incense employees, is it equity? Is it development opportunities? Is it something else?

Speaker 0 (8m 54s): That is a great segue. You did your, your listening homework for us. Thank you. Thank you for that. And permit me to introduce our next clip, which is reg Clevenger, CFO of live Vox. He was a number of episodes back 7 23, actually. And if you hadn’t caught it already, you might want to go back and take a listen. He had some really interesting insights about human capital. Here’s one of a number that he shared,

Speaker 3 (9m 32s): No, as part of the work streams of moving from a private company to a public company. It’s one of the things you have to think about is just overall, you know, compensation out to align compensation and that that gets to, to equity compensation also. So we, we engaged a compensation consultant and did a ton of, of analysis with them around other software companies and other companies in our space, other, you know, technology companies, et cetera, just to get a feel for, for what other companies do in terms of equity compensation in the public context.

And, you know, we use that just as a, as kind of the initial education framework to decide what, what we want it to do. And it was, you know, it was, it was important that for, for our, our CEO, Louise, somebody who founded the company to, you know, to, to have everyone share in that. And, and so he was like you said, he was, he was a big advocate of that. And obviously, you know, our, our head of human resources, a big champion for that.

And, and, you know, our board was supportive and, and you know, it’s not, it’s not, it’s not a, a, you know, a mystery that, you know, a board is going to give you a certain pile of equity to allocate, right. And lots of companies are going to focus that at the top, right. And, you know, top 5%, top 10% of people are going to get the equity. And, and it, it was important that we spread that, you know, a lot more egalitarian across, across the organization.

So it’s a, it’s a, somewhat of a flatter allegation that, that a lot of other companies would have done.

Speaker 0 (11m 40s): So let’s push those stock options down deep into the company beyond the top 5% down below 10% down, down a hundred percent. So what do you make of this egalitarianism? We’ve certainly seen a dumb before, but still it’s, it’s worthy of note. I think you’ll agree. What did you make of our workplace champions, CFO, Greg Clevenger had to share?

Speaker 2 (12m 4s): Well, I think it’s, it’s interesting and not unusual. So how’s that for being Canadian aid and sitting right on the fence, but being Canadian a, I begin thinking about fishing, right? And when you’re fishing, if you change your bait, you catch different things. You know what I mean? So his idea of attracting people with equity is going to entice a certain type of person to join the organization. So it’s interesting when you make these accidental decisions, how it forms a culture and values of the business going forward and predetermined, who’s going to be successful in your organization and who might be

Speaker 0 (12m 46s): Less. So to help us understand what you’re getting at here, who is likely not to be successful. And is it upper management? Is this going to be a less attractive approach for senior executives who are trying to be enticed to join the company?

Speaker 2 (13m 4s): Well, I don’t know. I mean, th the, the, the line I want heard is the carrot and whip are meant for the ass in the middle. In other words, if you’re trying to encourage employees by the carrot, you know, better financial incentives or the whip I’ll punish you, if you don’t work harder is treating the employee in a certain way. You know, new PowerPoint slide, millennials research tells us are highly incented by the purpose of the organization.

And if you read Daniel Pink’s book drive, that’s the first intrinsic motivator. He talks about that, especially in north America, you know, where the next dollar is worth, you know, incrementally less than the previous. One more and more people are choosing careers that allow them to feel connected to a higher contribution. Now, it’s important to note that whether I’m working in a not-for-profit a government or even a for-profit organization, we all have that higher calling.

The only thing is different is how we keep score. So in for, for profit organizations, the idea is if you make more profit at that’s an indicator that you’re adding more value. And so what we’re trying to do is we’re using dollars as an indication of your contribution society. So take your business and think about how it’s contributing to society, as opposed to, you know, how it’s contributing to EBITDA. And that becomes the north star, that compelling purpose from which people are more likely to join your organization.

So I’ve got one organization that’s talking, how about hiring it to solve hunger or help inner city kids get to school or some other great, great cause. And another one that says, if you join us, you’ll get 10% equity. You’ll have a different individual joining those two different companies. Okay.

Speaker 0 (15m 5s): But just one last time to touch on this to me, a more junior hire, this would get them more quickly to a, yes, I want to join this company. Then it would a more senior hire. So I’m thinking this is really a play for junior talent.

Speaker 2 (15m 25s): Well, you poked at that one a couple of times. So I’ll, I’ll try to give you an answer to it. I, I think executives is so they’ll get some form of equity or some equity index compensation. It’s a pleasant surprise to people lower in the organization. But even if you do his numbers, you’re getting a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of percent. Like you’re not going to be come Steve jobs by the equity that’s being shared with someone out of Columbia. I’m not dismissing it. And it’s certainly important to someone, but it’s in context is more important to their ego than it is their bank account.

But I’m still saying it’s a different person, a different competency set, a different mindset that joins that business. And that might be good. I might want someone who’s profit driven. So that moment to moment, they make decisions based on that, as opposed to someone else is trying to get inner city kids through school. And moment to moment is making decisions on how to get inner city kids through school. So my point here is I don’t think this CFO thought through the culture or values implications of that decision or the owner, and all of a sudden, you’ve got these accidental consequences to decisions that you’ve made based on our different criteria.

Well,

Speaker 0 (16m 40s): Now that we have you warmed up, Brett, I want to read part of this Reuters article regarding Google to you. I know that I think you’ll find it interesting, and I would love to hear your thoughts on it. And I think our listeners would like to as well, Google employees based in the same office before the pandemic could see different changes in pay. If they switched to working from home permanently with long commuters, hit harder.

According to a company pay calculator seen by Reuters, a company pay calculator, that’s right. You heard it. It is an experiment taking place across Silicon valley, which often sets trends for other large employers, alphabet inks, Google stands out in offering employees, a calculator that allows them to see the effects of a move put into prep, but in practice, excuse me, some remote employees, especially those who commute from long distances could experience pay cuts without charging their address.

Now, had you heard about this or what, what do you make of what writers is reported?

Speaker 2 (17m 57s): Well, I think ain’t Ayn, Rand rupee proud. You know, the, the idea is that as employees of an organization, it’s our, our commitment, our obligation, what we do is we provide outputs, you know, whatever those might be. There’s things that we’re expected to deliver to the organization that allows your organization to be successful. And in theory, if I deliver less of those things, then I should earn less money.

So you’re the fun part. And this dates back to our research in Harvard, back in the eighties, where while I was working with Kaplan, Dr. Kaplan, we’re trying to refine our accounting systems through activity-based costing to be more accurate in how we allocate dollars, because the idea is if I was more accurate, I could, I could better show that value of contribution. So Jack, here’s a question. Your podcast is free. Does that mean adds no value?

I should hope not, but the issue is dollars are the wrong unit of measure to determine whether our conversation we’re having here adds value to the listeners. I need other units of measure than dollars dollars worked well in tangible assets. When I moving, you know, fields into crops, crops into sheep, sheeps into sweater, like tangible assets, to tangible assets, to tangible assets. As soon as I begin adding intangible assets, accounting loses its traction.

So your question is, if I’m using the old era dollars to incentive employees, am I not missing 80% of the value equation that our businesses generate? And I’m asking the market to better value those intangible assets. Then me as an employer, tell me when to hop off the soap box. So imagine Steve jobs, he comes up with this brilliant idea. I’ll call it, let’s call it the iPad for the lack of a better word. Now out there, every computer in the galaxy has a keyboard, has got a mouse, has got a screen and I’ve come to this brilliant idea.

It has no mouse, it has no keyboard. And it’s going to change the world. And I’m going to, insent my Salesforce incentive based on dollar sales, I’m the salesperson. What’s easier for me to sell what the customer walks in, expecting a keyboard, a mouse, and a screen, or this thingy that actually doesn’t even have any software on it.

Speaker 0 (20m 28s): It has really awesome software

Speaker 2 (20m 31s): Has no keyboard, no mouse. It doesn’t work like it’s. We need different units of measure to drive performance. And whether I’m talking about the iPad or your YouTube, your, your podcast or a YouTube video, the value equation is completely different now. And I can’t use compensation systems from the fifties and sixties. And think it’s going to turn people’s crank in the 2020s, 2030s.

Speaker 0 (21m 2s): Well, we have to, you have to dip into the headlines with you more often, Bret Knowles. I w we do have another CFO to share with you now, and this is Charles frying of fleet. CoARC. Now he was on a recent episode of CFO thought leader. What I thought was interesting is Charles early his early career chapter was with Sipson consulting, which is a compensation. At least at the time he was with them. It was specializing in executive compensation.

So as he enters the CFO office, he has this background and I thought it was worthy to sorta explore with him executive compensation and a pay for performance at fleet Corp. And here’s what he shared.

Speaker 4 (21m 60s): Our employees are the company, right? They make, they make things happen. And so, you know, we are very, very focused on, on talent acquisition, talent development. And so what we do is we keep track, make sure we can hire and retain the people that we need to, and so far so good, but I would definitely tell you that the environment is getting increasingly competitive as the economy continues to heat up. We’re seeing the war for talent do so as well. We also engage our employees with annual surveys.

So we approach them and we really want to hear, hear their voice and perspectives. And so we measure their satisfaction across a number of different facets, and then we conduct pretty detailed analyses to gain the insights. We need to understand what they view as important versus what are, how are we doing on that facet? So is it important to you and are we doing well or not? And so that lens allows us then to prioritize, you know, what programs and initiatives we take on in the next year.

And good news is employee engagement during COVID improved. And so our it teams and our HR teams, you know, it took unprecedented steps to, to both enable people to work from home, but also make sure that they felt safe and connected to the company when we all went kind of virtual. And so, you know, we had some statistics in our, in a recent survey where 93% of our employees reported that they had with everything they needed to work from home. Obviously there’s some groups that work in data centers that have to maintain servers and such that may have to go in, but otherwise most were enabled.

And 94% of the employees said that they felt safe during COVID based on what we had done. So, so really proud of that. We were able to take care of our people in that regard as a public company. Obviously we have a compensation committee and governance structures around this. We take investor feedback very seriously, and they will give us guidance. We engage third party consultants. People like Sipson to help us with our design and, and level setting.

So for the past, call it 10 years, I’ve been the recipient of those decides as an executive at fleet Corps. But I tell you, we have, we’ve got a good mix. So it’s a mix of salary equity compensation in the form of restricted stock, but it requires company performance. In order to vest, our bonus objectives are set individually and looked at by our CEO and they’re measured. They’re very objective. So we’ve tried to remove subjectivity either. You, you meet your objective or you don’t, and if you don’t, you don’t get paid.

That’s kind of the philosophy that we try to employ everywhere. We can. COVID upset things a little bit, right? Because when we had to withdraw guidance, when COVID hit, in order to keep people motivated, we actually had to go through a rebudgeting exercise and then set second half targets that were different. But other than that, I’d say we’re very, very consistent in our approach and because of the equity component, right. It is tied to the shareholders performance as well. And so if, if you get options and your stock price doesn’t improve, they’re not worth anything.

And so that’s, that is a key component of our, our compensation as well.

Speaker 0 (25m 32s): Well, I think it’s a discussion we should be having. And so I’ll be asking, I think more of our finance leaders about compensation, but in the meantime, what did you make Brett of our workplace champion, Charles Freud?

Speaker 2 (25m 50s): Well, someone once described to me changing a compensation system as similar to changing the fan belt in your car while the engine is going, which is a pretty, not nice metaphor visual, but there are complicated systems with deep roots, both in Maslow’s hierarchy and paying the mortgage and someone else’s hierarchy about ego and stuff like that. It’s, they’re very complicated things to play with.

And frankly, it’s one that given the choice, I would flee from like rats jumping off a ship. So I admire them for, you know, continuing to jealous for that demon. The dilemma is compensation systems need a bunch of, of common characteristics. So often the metrics are lagging. In other words, I can’t compensate you for what might happen. I have to see what actually did happen. And therefore they’re less incenting because I already achieved whatever it was.

And it’s only through the rear view mirror that I see the benefit. Secondly, they need to be auditable. In other words, if you measure that thing and how you measure it, we come up with the same number because if your company has different numbers, then the compensation system no longer fair, cause you could get paid more for me more than me for the same work. So they’ve gotta be auditable and smart. So there’s a bunch of constraints beyond the structures that are in place that truly limit what you can do with compensation.

The dilemma is the employment market is changing much faster than you can change your employment model, your, your compensation model. And so he does a good job of narrating how it is Dave tried to match those two things that are working at a different cadence to come up with an answer that works for their, their team. So I think it’s instructive of an approach that people could take.

Speaker 0 (27m 60s): Well, our next workplace champion, I think our listeners will find the instructive as well, but for a different reason and a one that is too frequently infrequently talked about, and I’ll share a few thoughts on that after the clip, because I want to see Brett, I want to see if you agree with me or not. So, but for now this is CFO, Jill Clint of Workiva.

Speaker 5 (28m 35s): I would say that we have great people, but we want to be a much bigger company in order to do that. We need to hire, we will be hiring. We will add staff throughout the company and you can’t underestimate how important it is to get the right people in the right seats so that you can drive that growth and drive that scale. And on my own teams, it’s something that we focus on very heavily is making sure that we are planning forward.

What are we going to need so that we can get it in place? And we’ve, we’ve not done it as good about this in the past. So it’s something that, you know, you reflect on and realize that, you know, you, you need to do better and planning out where do you need the people so that you can allow your existing staff that’s been with you for so long to further develop and to move on. And so making sure that you’re balancing that workload correctly and prioritizing projects across that staff, but it’s hiring is not easy right now.

So it’s, it’s, it’s definitely something that you have to focus and pay a lot of attention to,

Speaker 0 (29m 51s): For someone who came up the ranks within the company was able to ascend into the CFO office. You did it, you, you were talent that was developed internally, but does Workiva take a more proactive approach in, does finance allocate the funds required to some of those people development programs? So

Speaker 5 (30m 11s): We do take a proactive approach. We have great retention. So I I’d like to think that we’re doing a good job of this, but there’s always more that you can do. And so we do focus a lot on developing our existing people to make sure that they can take on that next level. And as we grow those opportunities grow. So it’s, it’s all connected. You know, if we, if we continue to achieve the growth that we’re looking for, those opportunities within each team will present themselves because we will, you know, as you become a bigger company, you do have to staff more narrowly where in the past, maybe we had a broader focus.

And so we focus a lot on bringing those people up into the roles and, and hiring from within. And I, again, I did the same in my career. I want to do the same for the people across our companies as well and make those opportunities available. And I don’t think that any of us can grow and I certainly couldn’t have grown into this role without the support of everybody around me. I think it’s absolutely culture that, that feeds into it.

And we’re a Midwestern company we’re very humble. And what that leads to is being able to ask, I think for help and being able to look around and say, Hey, I don’t have all the answers. And, and so as a culture, we’re very open and we’re, we want to hear from our coworkers, we want to hear from the members on our teams to understand if there’s something that could be done better. And, and we’re very open to hearing that feedback. And we ask for that feedback all the time. And so I do think that we’re Kiva culture lends itself well to learning and developing in that way, because we’re, we’re willing to hear that feedback and to take it.

You can’t always do it as quickly as you want, but trying to grow towards being better.

Speaker 0 (32m 17s): Okay. That’s workplace champion, Jill Clint from episode 7 29 of a CFO thought leader. Some of what I want to share includes an explanation for you, Brett, because I imagine you may have expected another clip regarding executive compensation and here is plant well and not a word really about it. Instead, she starts talking about people in helping others.

And I was like, gee, this is a different lane for a CFO. And just some background on Jill 13 years ago, she joined Workiva when there was something like between eight to 12 other people as part of the organization. And it was near the end of our interview that I did something I never do. I asked her how old her eldest child was currently. And that might seem like an innocuous question, but it’s easy to well get into trouble quick.

Sometimes when an interview or proactively takes the interview out of the professional lane, but she had already mentioned she had three children. So I thought no harm here, really. And when she tells me her eldest is 13, there was this sort of aha moment where you realize it’s the same span of time. She grew professionally into a CFO at Workiva. Also part of what she shared is that the prior CFO who had joined where Kiva in large part to take it public back in 2014 was an important mentor for, and however, you get a sense of maybe some wing tips being added to the mix, to finesse and execute the transaction, which then begs the question though, who will be the post IPO CFO who opens this next chapter or growth.

And, you know, and what is that? The skillset that this particular leader must really have an expound. And the answer to that question for Kiva was someone who was part of us, part of this culture in, and of course that was jail. Did I, did I leave you speechless? Or are you, what, what are your thoughts?

Speaker 2 (34m 57s): Well, it’s interesting cause I was interviewed the other day about, you know, how it is that we make sure that we get the right employees and that we lead them the right way. And something that emerged in my thinking was treating people as people and the pause there is on purpose. Cause we, we, we get so carried away with, at least in north America, people has productive units and I’m worried about what their output is. I forget that the real life people and we haven’t made this eager in ourselves with, and I’m sure I will also get myself in trouble, but some of the new cultural norms, people are not, you’re not allowed to ask personal questions.

And, and so on, not saying that you should be a friend with your employees, but treat them as people understand that things like having a child in year, one of a startup is life changing. Like either one of those two is life-changing doing them both at the same time, impacts you for the rest of your life. And it’s important that we understand how people operate in context so that you can exhibit a little degree of empathy, but also understand their perspective and meet them where they’re at.

So what’s interesting is like everyone else, I, I looked up Jill on LinkedIn and saw that she’d been with the organization forever. And I, even before I listened, I prejudged and then I listened and you go, this is a person that is an active murder. She is a different person now than she was when she first joined the organization. And obviously she’s been given opportunities because people see that she’s an active learner and see that she’s able to keep on taking the next step and progressing and doing well and giving more opportunities.

So you describe it as the wingtips, which is gorgeous. I’ll have to remember that one. I haven’t worn wingtips for many years, but maybe I should put them back on again. But that the concept of taking mentorship from outside the organization and insight and progress in their career in perhaps in the organization is awesome. And what’s interesting to me about this conversation is it closes the loop on the previous two. It says there’s more to it than just compensating people for earning an extra buck.

She’s about what that person about what are the career opportunities that could be available to them now or in the future. Cause there was in the future, I’ll still do the stage setting, get them in position so that when it pops up, there are valid candidate like that. The mindfulness about the individuals that she showed. I think many of my clients could learn from that. I mean, it’s just delightful to see. And so I had to go back to your LinkedIn. I go, well, maybe she came from HR. Maybe she’s a convert.

She’s not, he’s always been debits and credits. So it’s interesting her awareness about people. And so I looped back to what some people might’ve thought were some inappropriate comments of yours about, well, she had a baby in year one and she had two more babies and stuff. That is the context that is not something that we should exclude. It informs us about many of the decisions she’s made. Like when you understand that the other stuff is what we call it, a glimpse of the buddy, obvious, like obviously I’m going to be people-centric, I’ve been through this personal, some of the biggest moments in my life as I’ve been growing this business from this small incubator, just left of nowhere to being, you know, a significant business in the community.

So to me, it’s very difficult to separate the individual from the organization, especially with someone like this has been on the full journey.

Speaker 0 (38m 53s): That’s great. And I do think, you know, I think, you know, so many finance leaders want to influence culture. They tell us they want to become part of it or a driver of it or a what’s the right word, a nourisher, you know, nourish it, whatever she is. It, this is what, you know, so many finance leaders are not wired for, to be honest, there’s ever so often you’d come across one. That is, and I think that’s what we’re Kiva recognized when the CFO, before her, and I don’t know this, she described him as a fabulous mentor for her and someone who was the right person to take or Kiva public, but maybe not the right person to, to stay at headquarters in Ames, Iowa, and, and, and nourish the culture and build it to the next level.

Speaker 2 (39m 42s): Well, in Canadian, I’m going to do what we call hogging the puck, which is instead of passing it, you’re going to try to take your go yourself. So in conclusion, my friend, I would say what’s interesting about these three is if I go in reverse order, Jill has specifically focused on the culture and figures out everything else will sort out itself. If we go to the beginning, Greg focused on the money and figures cultural sort of self out, not understanding that by being so focused on that incentive model, it skews the culture, right?

So he’s accidentally predetermined the culture of the business by making what he thought was a benevolent financial decision. And I know it wasn’t Greg, it was this the owner, but nonetheless, these are decisions that are made with the best of intentions that have unintended consequences. The middle guy, the, the jam between the two pits of brick, Charles kind of tried to work the line between the two. He understood the culture he wanted. He understood the, the complexities of compensation models and tried to engineer the spot in the middle.

So I think you’ve provided us with an interesting selection

Speaker 1 (40m 56s): For half. That that’s exactly what this episode is about. I’m not certain we plan things quite that way, but quick, put that bow on this one. And Brett, thanks again. I kept you long. Sorry about that, but thanks for being with us. Okay, buddy. Hi, it’s Jack. If you haven’t yet subscribed to workplace champions, you’ll find us on apple podcasts or if you’re an Android, check us out on Spotify.