Cognitive Debt: Why 83% Forgot What AI Just Wrote

[00:00:09] Welcome to Frequency, I'm Chuck Gose. Jenni Field Frequency is your go-to for real talk about comms, culture and employee experience beyond the buzzwords and straight to what matters. And today we are talking about rule breaking, AI's impact on workplace culture, some MIT research on the impact on the brain when using AI, and that communication is not about writing.

[00:00:33] J.C. Denny after you ripping on me about AI stuff last week, I'm glad you brought in another AI conversation for this week. I want to begin talking about something else. There's very few times, Jenni, I feel like I get to make you jealous, and now this is one of those times. I got to spend a couple days, we talked about it on past episodes with author John Acuff in his hometown of Franklin, Tennessee, which truly is like a Hallmark movie style town.

[00:01:01] Like it just had that feel to it. But we spent two days together talking about stage and page all about speaking and authoring slash writing. One, obviously great to spend that time with John Acuff and his partner Bill Hampton, learning about those sides of the business, especially the page part, which I've said to people was a bit like me spending a day in a class about quantum physics, because everything I learned that day was brand new.

[00:01:29] As much as we've all consumed and read books, just learning about the business side of books was informational a lot, but also very overwhelming just all the everything that goes into it. But the best part, there are about 20 of us in the room, all from different walks of life, all from different environments, where it gave me a chance. They're asking me all kinds of questions about ecology and what's it for? And what are you up to?

[00:01:58] And just be able to brag about the community, brag about this world of internal comms. It was really fun to do, but I was in a room with real estate agents and a former poet and someone who owns karate studios. So to be in a room with people that share similar goals, but just come from different walks of life. I think that that's the true highlight is out of those couple days, building friendships with people as well who are pushing themselves just like I am to elevate the work that we do.

[00:02:28] I think there's something really lovely about spending time outside of the comms, leadership, culture, HR space, because we spend so much time in it. I remember the first time I did it was 2019 with Chris Ducker. And I was like, this is amazing. I'm in a room full of people that make, you know, matcha tea and do martial art teaching, like all this other stuff. But like you said, have a really similar goal. And since that in 2019, I've spent a lot of time with other business owners in all other walks of life.

[00:02:54] And I've still got a group now. We call it the boss mastermind and it's a peer to peer group. And there's all different people, accountants, there's a fiction writer, there's a marketing specialist, there's all sorts in there. And it's brilliant. And I actually think spending time with people like that is just good for our brains. So we don't get stuck in the echo chamber that can offer me. And I would say one of the other highlights, and I'll give Bill and John credit for creating this space of people unable to brag about their successes, like a lot of people in there had already written a book.

[00:03:23] But to also have a space where they can say, and here are all the mistakes that I made. Yeah, along the way. So it wasn't an ego trip for anyone in there. It was truly to share and learn from each other. Really great, really great environment for that. Yeah. And I am jealous because you got to hang out with John Acuff and I think that'd be really cool. So yeah, that's off to you. But the first article today is about how the best leaders respond to rule breaking. This was in Harvard Business Reviews magazine, July and August, which I was reading at the weekend.

[00:03:52] And it talks about some new research from Michael Gill at Oxford's Business School, where they reviewed over 250 studies across four decades and land on an argument that we know leaders won't love, is that not all rule breaking is the same. And treating it all as a punishable offence misses what's actually going on. Gill sorts workplace rule breaking into four types along two different axes. There's a nice diagram in the article. Was it a deliberate choice or driven by situational pressure?

[00:04:20] And was the impact constructive or destructive? Now, it talks about self-interested breakers act for personal gain. So a consultant padding out billable hours. You've then got corrupted breakers or breakers who are pressured into harmful shortcuts. So a developer that's been coerced into shipping untested code. You've got edified breakers who bend the rules under pressure, but for good reason. So a nurse ignoring outdated discharge policy for patient welfare.

[00:04:47] And then you've got pro-social breakers who choose to bend the rules to help someone. So a rep accepting a late return from a loyal customer, for example. The stakes are rising as well. So there's an interesting ethics piece here. The ethics and compliance initiatives 2023 global business ethics survey found 65% of employees globally had observed misconduct up from 60% in 2020, with US figures topping 50%. Gill's prescription is a shift from reflexive punishment to curiosity.

[00:05:16] So understand intent before reacting. Separate intent from impact. So people don't stop using judgment or start hiding things and watch for patterns rather than one off incidents. So repeated violations offer signals something that's broken in policy rather than a bad person. And build channels to surface what never gets reported up the chain and then fix those root causes. So bad incentives, unclear rules, misaligned pressure, rather than just punishing the individual. I really enjoyed reading this article.

[00:05:45] But one line that stood out for me, Chuck, is the point that if a leader's first move is to punish, they might solve the immediate issue but miss the real cause. Now, that takes a level of restraint. A lot of leaders don't have, especially under pressure. But what does this leading with curiosity instead of assumptions actually look like in the moment of all gets broken? Is it practical or is it just theory? No, I think it is 100% practical.

[00:06:11] This is the role that leaders play is to understand the behavior that their employees had. And as you went through the different types of rule breakers. Well, actually, before we get to that, I've been accused in the past, Jenni. No. Of being a bit of a rule breaker. However, however, the truth is, I actually learned the rules so well that I learned where there's some little give and take in there, where there might be a loophole in some things.

[00:06:41] But no, as you were reading through those, the edified breaker where sometimes you have to break the rule for all the right reasons that the policy is actually getting in the way of what the intended goal is out there. And then the pro-social behaviors, you know, where you've got a situation where, hey, this is just the right thing to do for this person because of maybe something they've done.

[00:07:02] And I will say the example of the loyal customer, there have absolutely been times where I've broken rules because a customer has helped out in the past or has just needs that added assistance. But it all comes down to the severity of it. What are the consequences of that rule breaking? And I think that's where the leadership needs to comment. Was it a one off? Was it out of character for that employee?

[00:07:24] I know there was one time that immediately came to mind where I got an email from the CEO basically talking about how disappointed they were in me. They couldn't believe I made this choice. All these really horrible, nasty things about me. Wow. And I actually said, hey, it's clear you don't have all the information, but you've also passed along your judgment. So I'm good. I'll take it as is. Then HR got involved. They were like, well, wait a minute. What all happened? I'm like, you know what? It's too late. You've already passed judgment.

[00:07:52] You've already come out with your verdict on what happened without taking the time with this curiosity they talked about. I think you should always lead that if there's any leadership lesson out there, you should always lead with curiosity because that's going to be a more helpful tone to set with that employee. Yeah. And I agree. I don't I feel like it's a great theory and I love the get to the root cause and why it's happening, but I don't think it takes much in practice to say what happened here? How did we get here?

[00:08:22] Why did you make that decision? Why did you make that decision? Talk me through how you got to this decision or talk me through how you got here because there's always something to learn. I think from that conversation in terms of the, you know, the employee and their behavior, the policy that might need to change, whatever it is, there's a learning in there across these four different areas. And it doesn't take very much. But to just jump straight to the email you got from the CEO without establishing facts or interrogating some of that information. Like, is this actually true? Have I verified this?

[00:08:51] Do I need to talk to him? Like that is just a good, curious mindset. And I think the more people that have that, then I think the better work would be. I do think a lot of people do jump to this conclusion. And I think that's helpful. Well, and I think there again, then my stance, maybe not the most mature, but it was something where I go, hey, if you're going to act that way, I'm going to now act this way. But it also sent me a message. Okay.

[00:09:13] You actually do not care about my approach and understanding the logic or the reasons or the emotions that went into solving this problem. And so, again, if I could preach to anyone listening, if you are a leader or you're working with leaders and should always lead with curiosity and understand. And let's say that you've got, we've talked at nauseam in this podcast about RTO. So let's say you have to be at work at eight.

[00:09:37] You have to, you know, you cannot leave before five, but there's one employee who's like, maybe they're, I'm dreaming up scenarios. Maybe they're taking care of an elderly parent and they're like, hey, I will come in, but I can't get there before nine, but I will stay until six. Yeah. Is that breaking a rule or is that called being a mature adult and understanding circumstances that are out there? Now, if you've got a different employee who, you know, I think we termed the coffee badging where they're coming in every day, scanning a badge and then leaving for coffee and whatever.

[00:10:05] And you approach that employee and say, hey, that's not the right behavior, but they keep breaking the rule. Okay. Then yes, curiosity is important, but there's also compliance. So it's got to come in to that as well. Yeah. A hundred percent. A hundred percent. So the next story I've got is an AI one. So you'll be thrilled, which is AI's effect on workplace culture. It's a recent piece from Gallup. So they're looking at how AI adoption is splitting the difference on culture. 24% of employees say it's improved. 25% say it's worsened.

[00:10:34] And in AI adopted workplaces stayed the same drops to 51% from 59% in non-adopted ones. So roughly the same number of people think AI made things better as think it made things worse. So on the surface, nothing much has really moved. But the real hook, unsurprisingly, is the manager data. So employees who strongly agree their manager champions AI are far more likely to say that AI has transformed work. This is a big junk. This is a big junk.

[00:11:03] 33% versus 4%. And manager support correlates with culture improving. 31% versus 21%. And improving a lot is 9% versus 3%. Meanwhile, 50% of CHROs don't trust their managers to guide AI use, even though 99% call AI strategically important. And 57% are now funding manager AI training as the fix.

[00:11:29] Chuck, Gallup's whole story here is that AI's cultural impact hinges on manager support. But Gallup also sells manager training and enablement. So every time their research finds a culture problem, the fix is always invest in managers, which happens to be their product. Is this genuinely what the data shows? Or are they reverse engineering the narrative from what they've already positioned to sell? And even if managers really are the variable, is that a finding or just always true for every workplace shift ever measured, regardless of whether it's AI or anything else?

[00:11:59] Yeah, I'm going to agree with them. I get that this is what they do. But I think you invest in managers as never a bad investment or probably rarely a bad investment. I just think this data is so fascinating in that it's not fascinating. The fact that I wonder like if you just ask people like, hey, how is culture? Probably a quarter would say it's improved. A quarter would say it's worse. Half would say it's the same.

[00:12:24] I'm wondering here, is it truly that we're learning that AI or AI adoption actually has zero impact on culture? Is it really impacting culture? Should it impact culture? I don't know. Again, not surprised though to see the manager data. The manager championing anything is going to help employees along the journey. And then to point out the CHRO data, basically half trust their managers and half don't.

[00:12:53] I'm guessing that the 57% that are funding managers probably are the ones that trust it and the ones that aren't funding it don't, which says, again, invest in managers. And then 99%, I don't know that you can get 99% of people to agree on anything, but the fact that that many say that AI is strategically important. What does that say about the people that aren't funding managers? Yeah. You know it's important and you're funding that, but you're not funding the support, which you know drives the ultimate success. Or maybe this data will now have them change that. Yeah.

[00:13:23] It also made me think about the conversation we had a few weeks ago earlier this year around the different experience people have in organizations. I think we were talking about the different percentage points of if your function or role is invested in, if it's not, and kind of how that makes you feel differently about the organization. And I think if you're asking the whole organization about culture, then to your point, you're going to get a mix of different things depending on your experience in the organization. It just felt like a bit of nothing.

[00:13:49] And I thought the headline, like AI's effect on workplace culture, I was like, oh, I'm going to click on this and see what's going on for frequencies. And I was like, oh, this is not really saying anything other than invested managers, which we know, and people still don't do it. So I feel like it's like another hook into that manager conversation, which to your point is no bad thing. But it was definitely felt a little bit clickbaity for me and I obviously fell for it and we're talking about it.

[00:14:12] But I think it's a valid conversation here around anything you're doing that's going to impact your culture needs to have an investment in managers. And maybe that's just the biggest takeaway from this piece. Well, I think for those listening or watching, maybe think about this from your culture standpoint. What impact impact is it having on your culture? Is it having one at all? Have we over inflated the expectation of its impact or are we not really finding where it is impacting? Should it again? Should it impact culture? I don't really know.

[00:14:42] But I think it's more the tone and the attitude that leadership brings to this conversation is going to have a greater impact than the actual technology itself. So the next story is also about AI, which was a piece on Instagram I saw posted by Daniel Pink and it's about some MIT research. So MIT research ran the first brain scan study of people using ChatGPT to write essays. And the results were alarming, according to the Instagram post. It is worth noting, though, that this is sort of preprint.

[00:15:11] It's not a peer reviewed study. So let's just just take that in mind. They followed 54 people for four months. One group used ChatGPT, one used search engines and one wrote the essays entirely on their own. Researchers monitored their brains using EEG scans and the differences were striking. People writing without AI. So people writing without AI showed the strongest brain connectivity. Multiple regions actively working together.

[00:15:40] ChatGPT users showed the weakest neural engagement. But the most surprising finding came afterwards. So 83% of the ChatGPT users couldn't quote a single sentence from essays they've written 60 seconds after submission. They then asked the ChatGPT group to write without AI and their brain stayed under engaged. So researchers called this effect cognitive debt. When a tool does the thinking for you, your brain practices thinking less.

[00:16:08] So the lesson isn't don't use AI, but it's more about how you use it. So using it to challenge your thinking rather than just replacing your thinking, because we don't want to create more content and do faster writing. It's more about how we get a stronger, better thinking mind. So I thought this was quite interesting. So Chuck, if cognitive debt is real, even after four months of light occasional AI use in a lab setting, what does this mean for people that are using ChatGPT or CoPilot every single day inside their internal comms workflow?

[00:16:37] Are we already carrying the debt and we just haven't noticed yet? I think it's just like this thing said. It's not that you're using it, it's how you're using it. So if you're using ChatGPT or CoPilot or Claude every day, it doesn't mean you're not thinking. It doesn't mean that your brain isn't working. It could just be like, how and why are you using it? They couldn't recite a single sentence? Of course they couldn't. Yeah. I'm not surprised by that.

[00:17:02] But also I think about if I were to read something and then come back 60 seconds later and say, Hey, read me a complete sentence from something you just read. I probably couldn't. Right? The way your brain processes information, I think is very different when you're regurgitating it or reading it versus actually writing it out. So I think I'm not surprised about any of this.

[00:17:26] What I am curious about though, the people that wrote essays entirely on their own versus those that use search engines versus those that use ChatGPT. Was it any good? Was the quality any good? Like we don't know. Maybe your brain worked really hard, but it was kind of garbage content because you didn't have access to other information. So it's really relying on what you already knew versus going out and finding additional information.

[00:17:55] So this doesn't speak to quality of content information. It just speaks to what someone's brain is doing at that point in time. Yes. But I think that is the point, which is if you're using it to do the thinking and creativity for you, it's going to have a long term impact on your brain and your ability to be engaged and think and have those things. So if you're outsourcing your thinking, then your brain isn't going to work as well as it should do.

[00:18:20] And I have to say, I did witness somebody speak at an event earlier on this year who was an expert in AI and they were maybe the closing keynote or the opening keynote, I think, on the second day. And it was the most schizophrenic presentation I've ever sat in about. It was like, we've got a thought and then I've got a thought and then we've got a thought. And I was like, there is no there is no thread to this. It was like just a little soundbite. It was really hard to follow as a as a talk.

[00:18:48] And it got me thinking, is this because this person has lived in this AI world for such a long time and maybe outsourced some of their thinking that they're not able to really think about the story and what they're doing and everything's become almost soundbite. It was just genuinely very strange. It did. That was the first time I really thought about what is the impact on our brains and our ability to construct stuff and write and think critically if we are heavy users of the tool and heavy users in a way that is outsourcing your thinking and writing.

[00:19:16] Well, I'm going to say outsourcing thinking and writing in some contexts could be the same thing and it could be wildly different from one another. Maybe what needs to be written does you can you can outsource the thinking of it because you're you're focusing your thinking on other things. So it's not that people aren't thinking it's just maybe in this one context, they weren't using their brain because they didn't feel like they needed to. But again, it doesn't speak to the quality.

[00:19:47] I understand what you're saying about that one presenter. They could have been sporadic with or without a I I remember seeing presenters all over the board. I have no baseline. I have no baseline. But but I think it's it's it comes back to how and why are you using are you using it to create a shortcut because you don't want to write something? Yeah, it's probably not going to be your brain's not going to work as hard.

[00:20:10] Yeah, but I would rather us focus on the quality of the work and that you spend the time thinking on the things that you get the most benefit out of. Right. The last story today is about the fact that communication isn't about writing. Now, as I get faster and better at producing polished writing is the communications profession losing its core value or is it finding it? This is an article on LinkedIn from Tanya Pakula, and it was highlighted to me on my feed by Bridget Ahern.

[00:20:37] Now in the article, it makes the case that writing was never really the job. The real work of communications has always been judgment, understanding a situation, structuring an argument, reading an audience and knowing when a message shouldn't be written at all. And I can draft in seconds what's once what once took hours, but it can't provide context, verify accuracy or judge whether a message will actually land. If anything, those human skills just became more valuable, not less.

[00:21:06] So, Chuck, if I can now produce writing that's good enough in a fraction of the time, do you think that raises the bar for what good communication work looks like? We talked about quality just now. Or does it just shift where communicators spend their time and let quality quietly sleep? Yeah, I think this is this is a good conversation as an industry to have that when I let's look at this from the A.I. side of things that I can't remember the gentleman's name or talk about this.

[00:21:32] I would like to give him credit if I find it. We'll put it in the show notes where he talked about that. But A.I. has always been about breaking through bottlenecks. So, for example, with coding, it just took time to write code and that A.I. broke through that bottleneck. The next bottleneck is judgment. That is where we still have that superiority. That is where we have that clarity on communication. So, yes, I do think that is the role of a great communicator. And I'm saying like little C communicator, not big C.

[00:22:02] I mean, just people who are really good at communications just have this knack, have this understanding of not what to communicate, but how and at what frequency and different techniques to drive and different tone and words and all that to use. You're right. A.I. can't do that. It can draft seconds, what might have taken hours or days before. And we've all worked with people who are great writers, but horrible communicators.

[00:22:27] So I do think this is something for us to look at as an industry of what is our purpose? What is the value we bring? And I do think it is reading the room, structuring that argument, pulling all the data points and things into one point. That is the role. But we've we've sort of streamlined it because some of us are really good writers and also don't think we should be looking at good enough as the quality. We should be looking at how can we make things great?

[00:22:54] I was thinking back over the years of running my event, QOM3 boot before that was the big yak where people kind of choose their topics. And storytelling has been quite a big phrase. You're a big fan of storytelling has been a big phrase, I think, for our industry for a long time. And I wonder if that's partly and that's become, I think, a bit about, you know, written content. I'm not saying it should have been, but I think that's where that's taken place. How do we write more creatively? How do we write better?

[00:23:20] I mean, being an author has become such a an area of focus that I wonder if that focus as the predecessor to AI coming in is probably what's making everyone feel like. Oh, we've is now being replaced because I can do the storytelling, I can do that. And I wonder if that just that happens to just all come at the same time and whether that's made it feel more messy and uncomfortable, because we spent so much time talking about crafting the story and all of that stuff. And now that element has to some degree been taken away.

[00:23:49] Well, and I think too, to look at the delivery of what you're doing, and I'll just mean delivery of like what channels you're publishing into, but who is delivering that message? We've had some data in the past that the who matters just as much as the what. So it's not just that it got written, but who is talking about it? Who is sharing it? Like that's the part because you could have two leaders get the exact same content, internalize it and deliver it in wildly different ways that are going to connect with different people. That's the role that communicators play.

[00:24:19] Again, lower C, because we've all seen, we've all worked with leaders that might be there in marketing, maybe they're in finance, who are really strong communicators because they know how to connect with who they're trying to communicate with. Yeah, I think that's it, isn't it? It's the outcome that you've got to stay focused on is that connection. And I think it's moving us away from this tick box. Part of the reason I really like this is because of the conversation I was having with people about AI. And I've been having this conversation about six months with communicators,

[00:24:47] which is we have spent a lot of time as, you know, certainly in internal communications, talking to each other about the fact that the industry needs to move away from just creating content and into sort of advising and asking questions and being curious and all the stuff we talk about on this podcast and in this episode. But we never really went outside of communications to have that discussion. So we all talk to ourselves about this need to do it. But nobody went and spoke at the business conferences, the HR conferences, about the importance of communication and doing it with impact and outcome and all of this stuff.

[00:25:16] So all people see is the output, which is the content, the story, whatever it is, which AI can do. So because and actually that's more convenient because I haven't got to have this really horrible conversation. We are going to ask me lots of questions about, you know, judgment and understanding a situation and all those things. Because I just want the output and the output can do that because we haven't connected the dots in helping that stakeholder understand why that's important and what that's going to do. And I still see that now. And I think that's part of the challenge.

[00:25:45] And I think this article highlights that to a degree in terms of it's not about the writing. It's about everything else. But we didn't take everybody with us. And I think that's still work that needs to be done to help people understand why that's needed, why those human skills of verification, the context, the judgment, all of that still needs that education for the stakeholders so that they do come with us. I also want to talk about the, you know, better at producing polished writing.

[00:26:12] I've been on this thread recently where I've been hearing more and more about the grammar is actually quite elitist. That we've sort of have gotten it all wrong with the power of communication is connecting people. It's not having it be grammatically accurate because you can actually get your message across and be creative in context without it being this perfect style. And I think that's something we've seen at events and conferences where people are like, oh, it's not this style. Oh, it's not that style.

[00:26:41] The receiver doesn't care. They don't care. Can you get your message across in creative ways? It doesn't have to be this polished approach. We saw that with video content a lot. That now people just want to be connected to it. Let's bring that style to what we're doing as communicators. Yeah, I would say that grammar is still important though. I don't think you can just throw it in. No, people are, you can be in that camp. Okay, I'm going to say in that camp. But other camps are saying in the grand scheme of things, yes, you don't want to have intentional misspellings and stuff.

[00:27:11] But oh, the comma's in the wrong place. Or oh, they misused, you know, a semicolon. People don't care. We care. No one else cares. No, my mum has a great picture in her downstairs story. There's a link here, I promise. Which shows about how commas are important. Which is like, no comma, more wine. I know what you mean. Versus no more wine. I know what you mean. I'm going to stay firmly in that camp.

[00:27:36] But I hear you on, it doesn't need to follow the rigid rules that maybe we did have many years ago. So we'll leave that there because clearly we're going to get into a battle. That brings us to the end of our stories today. What are you freaking out about? I'm going to come back to the event that I attended with John Acuff and the stage and page. And I'm going to focus on the page part. This is what I'm freaking out about. The stage part, I've done that. I can get a lot better. I can curate that a bit more. So I learned a lot there.

[00:28:06] I want to focus on the page part. Because everything shared that day was brand new to me. As many books as I've read, the intricacies of the business of writing and selling books was entirely brand new to me. And it was a lot to digest. It was so much to learn. But I will say again, it was having other authors in the room. So there's a shout out to the people that were in the room. Sharing the mistakes that they made.

[00:28:36] Sharing the things that weren't perfect. Having John Acuff share early on in his authoring the mistakes that he made along the way. That's only going to encourage more people. Because you'll have the camps out there. Maybe this is part of your grammar camp as well, Jenny. That's like, oh, we don't need another book about that. We don't need another book about something. I brought up the example. Like imagine James Clear, people saying, there's already a bunch of habits books out there. You don't need to write another habits book. No, he did.

[00:29:05] He found the unique angle. He found what made it personal to him that clearly other people needed. And so it was just really encouraging to hear that, yes, there's a lot of wonderful ideas out there. So many great books. There's so much more opportunity for more great books. But so overwhelming learning that business side of publishing. There's something lovely there about being in a room and properly learning. I think certainly, say to my career, I shared, I think on here that I'd been to a speaking boot camp in the UK.

[00:29:34] And I came away from that thinking, oh, I've actually learned stuff today. And that's really cool. I was quite fired up, quite overwhelmed. But I was also like, this has been great, like properly learning stuff today. And I like being in a classroom. I might prefer that to anything online or any of that stuff. So yeah, really cool. Really cool. So my freak out this week is dog chaperones. So I was, and I know you're thinking, where is she going? So I was at my brother-in-law's wedding last week.

[00:30:03] And him and his now wife, Sarah, congratulations, William and Sarah, have a dog called Nico. And Nico was in charge of bringing the rings down the aisle for them. And then obviously given to the best man. And they had a dog chaperone at the wedding. So they had somebody who looked after Nico the whole time, just walked him down the aisle. Obviously, he wasn't just going to come around and give out rings. And I had never heard of a dog chaperone at a wedding until this happened.

[00:30:31] And in fact, I've got other friends who have got like dog walking businesses. And I said to them, do you know, you could be a dog chaperone at a wedding. And they were like, what? What a cool job to just hang out with dogs all day at what is a super fun day anyway, because it's full of love and joy. So they're adding it as a service now to their dog walking business as dog chaperones. But you're nodding. I feel like it's quite a normal thing in the States. I've never heard of it over here. I haven't seen that side of it. I'm nodding along because I'm like, if I could ever have a job at a wedding, that's the job I want.

[00:31:00] Like I would do that in a lot of situations and environments. I would rather just hang out with the dog and have to manage people at that point in time. So yeah, I love it. Because also, it's a bit like having a babysitter for a kid. Like you do need to have someone help take care of the dog. Much rather do that than other things at a wedding. Such a cool idea. Just such a cool idea. It's lovely. Well, that's it for this week. Thank you for joining us. We hope the articles and insights will help you think about how to improve comms, leadership,

[00:31:29] and culture in your organization. If you don't yet subscribe or follow, please do as it helps make sure you won't miss an episode. All the links to all the articles we've mentioned today are in the show notes. So you can grab those to read if you want to explore anything further. We'll be back with you on Monday with more news, insights, and opinions about everything comms and leadership in workplaces today. Appreciate you being here with us.