Timestamps

00:00:00: Introduction
00:02:09: Three kinds of failures
00:03:19: Mistakes vs failures
00:04:59: Intelligent failure
00:10:39: Skills to help with intelligent failures …
00:11:32: … 1: self-awareness
00:12:29: … 2: situation awareness
00:13:50: … 3: system awareness
00:14:45: Press pause, and have a conversation
00:17:46: Know when to give up
00:21:33: The effects of privilege on failing
00:23:36: Psychological safety for intelligent failure
00:27:57: Where to start failing well
00:30:13: Amy's career advice
00:31:28: Final thoughts

Interview Transcription

Sarah Ellis: Hi, I'm Sarah and this is the Squiggly Careers podcast, where every week we take a different topic to do with work and we talk about some ideas, actions and tools to support you to navigate your Squiggly Career with that bit more confidence, clarity and control.  This is one of our Ask the Expert episodes and you'll hear me in conversation with Amy Edmondson.  Together with Amy, we'll be talking about intelligent failure, and she'll be talking about her new book, The Right Kind of Wrong. 

Amy is one of the few guests to make a repeat appearance on the podcast, and she is totally worth it.  She's so insightful and interesting, and her work has had a really big impact on me, both in terms of how we support other organisations with their career development, but also how I think about designing my days and the work that I do and trying to do the best work I possibly can.  She is so enjoyable to have a conversation with because I think she has a lovely mix of optimism and openness, as well as really wanting to make a positive difference through the work that she does.  There's a reason that I think she's just been crowned, if that's the right word, number one management thinker in Thinkers50.  So, I think it basically means you're the smartest thinker in your academic world in what you do, so it's incredibly impressive, but she holds that impressiveness very lightly.  And I hope you enjoy listening to the conversation today.

Amy, thank you so much for coming back to talk to me on the Squiggly Careers podcast.  I'm so excited about our conversation today. 

Amy Edmondson: I'm so glad to be back.  Thank you for having me. 

Sarah Ellis: And we're going to jump straight in, because as I said, I've spent too long now interrogating your new book, Right Kind of Wrong, I've got way too many notes.  So I was like, right, let's start with the basics.  My sense is that not all failure is born equal.  Does that feel fair; and how would you describe the different kinds of failure?

Amy Edmondson: It's completely fair.  And in fact, that's the very heart and soul of the book, is to appreciate that not all failure is born equal.  And I identify three kinds of failure, but only one of them is good, only one of them is welcome or should be welcome, and that is the intelligent failures.  And intelligent failures are undesired results of novel forays in new territory.  In other words, they're an experiment that you had good reason to believe might work, but that failed.  Of course, scientists earn their living through intelligent failure and the occasional exciting success, as do elite athletes and so many others.  So, intelligent failures, and we can dig into those more, are the Right Kind of Wrong. 

The other two kinds of failures are basic failure and complex failures.  Basic failures are those undesired results that are caused by human error, by failing to do what we know how to do or we're trying to do, for some reason.  Complex failures are multi-causal.  They're like the proverbial perfect storm, where any one of the factors on their own wouldn't have caused a mishap, but because they all lined up at the same time in some weird way, they led to a failure.  Accidents, many accidents are complex failures.

Sarah Ellis: And what is the difference between a mistake and a failure?  I find this quite interesting, and I think a few times I've got myself caught up in a few knots, and I think I got there by the end.  I'd like to hear your description to see whether I was along the right lines.

Amy Edmondson: Yes, it is one of my pet peeves that people use those two words interchangeably, and they're not the same thing.  So, a mistake is deviation from a known process or practice; there is knowledge about how to get a result and it's not followed.  A failure can be a mistake, it can be caused by a mistake, but intelligent failures are not mistakes if there's literally no way to have known in advance that something you tried wouldn't work until you tried it.  I actually go so far as to say, we shouldn't use the term "trial and error".  We should use the term "trial and failure" because it's not an error when it's in new territory.  It's only an error when we have valid knowledge about what will work.

Sarah Ellis: That makes sense.  And I think actually mid towards the end of the book, and I think this was from somebody you'd work with, you have this brilliant title that is always going to stay with me and definitely a bit of borrowed brilliance we'll bring into some of the work that we do, and you describe it as, "Words to work by".  And we are a big fan in careers and Squiggly Careers of sort of letting go of some unhelpful language, unlearning unhelpful language, and replacing it with words that I think frame how we see the world.  And actually, I was starting to write down a few notes about failure.  So, initially, I was like, "Okay, we've got to be comfortable with failure".  Then I went further, and I was like, "No, we've got to celebrate failure".  And then I went further and decided, "Oh no, actually, do we actually have to reward it?" intelligent failure in particular. 

So, I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about, certainly from your research and the work that you've done, what unlearning has to happen for this intelligent failure to be given a chance of succeeding?

Amy Edmondson: I think the first and most important unlearning is unlearning the wrongheaded belief that we're supposed to know everything, that we're supposed to be perfect, that we're supposed to get it right every time.  We are fallible human beings, we were born fallible, we will always be fallible, and we need to accept and almost embrace that reality.  So, unlearn the idea that we have to be perfect, unlearn the idea that it's shameful to make a mistake or shameful to experience a failure, so we shouldn't let anyone know we've done it.  And I think unlearn the idea that the best way to produce success in organisations is to have people be afraid of the consequences, especially of failure. 

If you're really afraid, if we tell you in no uncertain terms, "Failure is not allowed around here", then you'll be really motivated and do great work, right?  Wrong, especially not knowledge work.  Any work that requires creativity, problem-solving, ingenuity is going to happen better in a more fearless environment, and that means you have to accept the reality that some things won't work out as hoped.

Sarah Ellis: And one of the things that struck me, I was reflecting on my intelligent failures, I think when you read the book, it encourages you to question, "What sorts of failures do I have, and what's worked well?"  And one of the reflections that I had is just how important the relationships, perhaps within a team and leaders are, if you want intelligent failure.  So, I was thinking about a big experiment I did when I worked for Sainsbury's here in the UK, a big retailer.

Amy Edmondson: I know it, yeah.

Sarah Ellis: And we made a TV show, and it was a big, high-profile experiment that I was very clearly accountable for.  We decided not to do a second series, and I think that could have gone one of two ways.  It was absolutely the right thing, it was an intelligent failure, you know, it would be too much money to keep going.  But I will never forget my leader at that time, standing up in front of 150 people, and saying how brilliant it had been and that it was the right thing to do and what we had learned, why we weren't going to do it again.  And I was thinking, "Crikey, my relationship with that work that I did at that time was dramatically different", because somebody, a very, very senior influential leader, had created the conditions where I could fail well.  And I just wondered what your reflections were on the senior leaders, those people at the very top of these organisations, the sorts of things we need them to role-model to make this happen.

Amy Edmondson: I think you've described it so well.  I wish I could package that leader!

Sarah Ellis: Oh, she was brilliant!

Amy Edmondson: I'd get very wealthy selling that leader's playbook, if you could sort of snap your fingers and make it happen.  But it's exactly right.  And the reason why what she did was right is that there's literally no way you could have known in advance whether or not that very good, interesting, creative idea would have worked without doing it.  And you did it and it had some successes, but it didn't hit what it needed to hit to be worthy of continuation.  You celebrate those things, you celebrate the initiative, you celebrate the hard work that went into it, and you celebrate more than anything else, the learning that came from it.  And the reason you want to do all those things is obviously not to encourage mediocre effort, but rather to encourage risk-taking in a new territory of ideas that could possibly work, even be game-changing, and you want more of it, not less.

Sarah Ellis: And what do you think, from the organisations that you've worked with -- and you've actually also worked with lots of different kinds of organisations, so private, public sector.  I always really like reading about some of the work you've done also in hospitals and care environments.  What are the biggest barriers that stop us from doing this well?  Because I think when you read both Fearless Organisation and Right Kind of Role, and when I talk to people about it, everyone nods their head.  Who doesn't want to be working in this way?  It creates high performance, you're in a high-trust team, there's psychological safety, there's so much good stuff to be gained from this.  And yet, I still wouldn't say I see it day in, day out.  It feels hard to do well. 

Amy Edmondson: It is hard. 

Sarah Ellis: It is hard. 

Amy Edmondson: Really hard.  I had to write a whole book about it because it is hard. it's not natural. it's not instinctive.  So, you ask about barriers, and the barriers exist at the three fundamental levels of analysis: individual, group, and organisational.  So, individual, it's our self-talk, it's our erroneous beliefs about failure, "I can't make a mistake, and I don't want to let my team down, and I want people to like me and think well of me, so I've got to be perfect".  It's a sort of wrongheaded, unhealthy, unhelpful belief.  Group dynamics; almost inadvertently, in groups we respond, we applaud the successes and we kind of groan with the failures, and we don't mean to do that but we do it rather naturally, and lead people to the conclusion that, "Yeah, I'd better get it right the first time".  And then finally, organisational incentives often don't do, as you described that wonderful story, but instead the organisational incentives are in place to reward only success and really kind of to discourage and in some cases even humiliate people for failures.

Sarah Ellis: And you describe sort of three skills, but you can tell me if you would describe them in a different way, three skills I think individually we could all take accountability for increasing, which would help us with intelligent failures.  So, there's self-awareness, situational awareness, and then systems awareness.  And I wonder for our listeners if you could just describe those three things, appreciating actually, I think as you go through, well certainly systems awareness, that's not something that you can learn in ten minutes.  The more I got into that, the more fascinated I got, but also the more I thought, you know, when you start to realise, "I don't know what I don't know"?

Amy Edmondson: Exactly. 

Sarah Ellis: But I think useful for people to at least understand what those things are, because I do think they are things that we all have agency over in terms of getting better at.

Amy Edmondson: I agree, and I would call them skills.  And maybe that's not entirely intuitive, that self-awareness could be a skill.  Of course it is.  So, I'll describe self-awareness first, which is the skill of being curious about, and therefore becoming more aware of, the impact you're having, especially interpersonally, and being aware of your self-talk, for example, and being aware of the ways in which you might be beating yourself up for coming up short when, in fact, you should be enthusiastically welcoming new experiences and the learnings that they bring.  I think the fundamental skill for self-awareness is choosing learning over knowing, hard-wired to kind of have the experience of thinking and feeling like we know.  Like, "I see reality".  I don't.  I see a partial reality filtered through my background, expertise, and biases.  And so, I've got to keep forcing myself to become curious, "What am I missing?  What do you see that I don't see?  So, self-awareness is the part that is entirely within your control, but it's hard still. 

Situation awareness is, in a way, a little easier to learn, and it's still not something we do naturally.  And situation awareness for me is primarily about sizing up the degree of uncertainty, you know, "How much is known about whether this new TV show will work in the future?"  Very little, it is highly uncertain.  And then, "What are the stakes?"  And stakes primarily boil down to financial, reputational, and human safety.  Of course in healthcare, we're particularly concerned about human safety.  And so, depending on how high are the stakes and how high is the uncertainty, that dictates how much risk you can take.  In really uncertain, very high-stakes environments, you should be quite cautious.  You should be having tiny experiments to see what you can learn to reduce some of that uncertainty.  But if it's sort of really low stakes, there's nothing economic or reputational or physical safety, and yet it's really uncertain, then you should be having as much fun as you can, experimenting and learning behind closed doors, as it were.  I think we naturally do a sort of one-size-fits-all, "I'm supposed to behave this way, I'm supposed to accomplish things", and really our behaviour should absolutely be modified to fit the uncertainty and stakes of the context. 

Then finally, system awareness is mostly about pausing to realise that the future matters and other people and systems and events matter too.  So, when we make decisions, we often make them, or when we act, we often make things very narrow like, "Will this work?  If I speak up, will someone listen to me?" versus thinking about, "Well, if I don't speak up, a few days from now that patient may suffer".  System awareness is about stepping back to see that cause and effect are not so simple, it's not linear and it's not simple.  Things have longer term consequences, some of which are unpredictable, but many of them are predictable if you just give five minutes of thought to it.  You resist the kind of quick, easy decision and you just pause to think, "Okay, who or what else might be affected and when might that effect happen?

Sarah Ellis: And I think, there, you just gave a great example of sometimes, something like systems awareness might feel overwhelming for people as a skill.  But actually, even as a starting point, we often use the phrase, "Press pause", like when and where do you need to press pause?  If you just did press pause and you just continually asked yourself that same question, "Who or what else might be impacted by this project, piece of work, decision?" that's making the whole slightly bigger than the sum of the start.

Amy Edmondson: Exactly.  It's just looking at how the parts interact, not just at the parts.  And press pause is also a discipline I talk about.  I use the word stop and pause in the self-awareness chapter because similarly, just pause, stop, reflect on how I'm thinking about this challenge, whether there might be a better, helpful way to think about it, and then choose my response instead of just being in reaction mode. 

Sarah Ellis: My other observation was, I wonder how often teams are having conversations about situational awareness, because I feel like maybe that's something that's not talked about very commonly and I think it's often a barrier to people experimenting and taking more risks, because actually we haven't had the shared understanding of saying, "Well for the objectives we've got or the goals that we're working on, what's high, medium, low stakes?  What is the level of uncertainty?"  And even that relatively basic mapping exercise, I think you could probably do, even two or three of you, probably does help you to identify, "Oh, actually, we've got some space to play here".

Amy Edmondson: Exactly.

Sarah Ellis: "Actually, we've got a bit less space to play here, because actually this is more about execution, but maybe we can experiment in small ways to continually improve".  And actually the reason it's so prevalent for me is, last week I had an example where I in my head, the stakes were, I think I'd categorised them low to medium and somebody else had categorised the stakes more high to very high.  And actually it caused conflict because I was like, "Oh, I'm over here experimenting", and then my co-founder was like, "Whoa, wait a minute.  I don't think that's the space to play".  I was thinking, "Oh, that's so interesting".  Essentially, because we hadn't sort of pressed pause and sort of agreed that shared understanding of stakes and certainty, actually it created challenges.  Now, the good thing is we know each other well enough that we could have the positive conflict.  But I just thought, "Oh, that's what was missing, because that conversation hadn't happened.

Amy Edmondson: No, unless that should sound like an overwhelming new task to add to your list, it's not.  It's actually, that's a conversation that can take two minutes.  We clarify some basic mental models about how we're seeing the situation, and then we discover, to our surprise, that we're seeing it differently, and then that can be an opportunity to kind of get on the same page.

Sarah Ellis: You describe some perhaps characteristics or ways that we can start to practise failing well and some things to look out for.  So, one of the things that I found really interesting was you talk about knowing when to give up.  It feels like there's a bit of a tension or dichotomy here that I was playing with in my brain.  It's like, "Okay, well, I want to be persistent and I'm a big fan of grit".  And so I go, "Right, well, I want to be gritty, and I sort of feel that's me at my best".  Also, I can be a bit stubborn personally, I know I've got that characteristic.  And so, how could we help people like me know when to give up, what to look for, because I think I would sometimes be at risk of failing because you become too determined and you don't maybe spot the signs of when you need to let go; is that just me? 

Amy Edmondson: No, this is a very real tension.  And another way to put it when it's a tension is, it requires judgment.  And sometimes the best way, not always, but sometimes the best way to arrive at a good judgment is with help.  You run it by someone else because, "Am I crazy?  Am I banging my head against this particular wall unfruitfully?  And to me the diagnostic question is really, "Do you have good reason to believe that these are just hurdles that in fact are conquerable to get to this result that you can clearly see will have value if you can get there?"  Or, "Am I the only one who sees the potential value here?  And this is me, you know, perpetually trying to convince others to see the value I see, but I can't get anyone to see it my way".  Then that's a real problem.  Then it's, okay, time to pivot. 

So, I give the example in the book of Sarah Blakely, who famously created the Spanx company, which is a billion dollar brand.  She had created sort of mock-ups of the product, and her sisters and her friends loved it, but she could not get anyone to manufacture it.  She knocked on dozens of doors, textile manufacturers, and they all said, "No, don't see it, goodbye".  But looking at the response of her potential customers led her to have confidence that the hurdle here is, "I've got to get someone to make it", not whether or not it's an appealing, attractive product to the women I seek to sell to.  There was a logical case to be made for persisting.  I remember years ago having a PhD student who had an idea that this was going to be this great research project, and nobody found it interesting.  And at a certain point, you do have to pivot because your audience are those people who don't find it interesting.

Sarah Ellis: I guess the point there is also about going, "What are the data points telling me?"  I really remember we had a similar experience with Squiggly Careers.  So, when we first started talking about Squiggly Careers ten years ago now, individuals got it.  So, people were straight away going, "Yeah, my career feels like I develop in different directions.  I'm Squiggly".  I know yourself, you've done multiple really interesting different things.  So, individuals got it.  Actually, initially, organisations were still quite ladder-like, "We're about hierarchy, we've got organisational structures, people fit into boxes".  But actually, because we'd got the data points around how individuals were responding, it gave us the confidence to keep going.  Actually, we thought we could overcome those hurdles. 

We were right, because then we got to a point where every organisation was getting flatter, everybody started to embrace the idea of much more Squiggly Careers, internal mobility.  But then there were other things that we've done where you start to think, you might really like this idea, but nobody else does.  And it's okay, it's okay to give up.

Amy Edmondson: It's okay, you'll have another idea!

Sarah Ellis: And I thought it was interesting, towards the end of your book, and you actually say very honestly that perhaps it's one of your regrets that you didn't research it sooner, but I wondered if you could just give a few perspectives on, does everybody have an equal opportunity to fail well?  Because I think actually this idea of thinking about, "Well, how does privilege overlay or surround this ability to fail intelligently?"  I actually wasn't necessarily expecting it in the book.  And I was like, actually, the more I thought about it, the more I thought, "Oh, that's really fascinating".  So, I wonder if you could just give us your point of view on that?

Amy Edmondson: Yeah.  It's absolutely, I think, a very important point, and one that I can make but I can't fix, per se, except making it discussable so that we can do better societally, culturally.  I mean, there's two obvious kinds of privilege, and one is economic, where of course you have more room to fail and not end up with nowhere to live and nothing to eat.  That's a real platform opportunity to give you more wiggle room to try things.  And then the other is being part of a majority group.  When you fail, you are not at risk of people attributing it to your category.  So, if you are a member of an underrepresented group in an organisation, you are far more risk-averse for good reason.  You are worried that, "If I try something big and it fails, it will end up harming other people I care about because they will think, 'Don't put someone like that in that role again'".  So, there's more risk-aversion, which ironically can end up increasing the chances of failure, because you're less able to seek the help you need and take the risks through which great success comes.

Sarah Ellis: And if people listening are really interested to find out more about that, I would point you to Sophie Williams' TED Talk on the glass ceiling.  And she's got a new book coming out on that exact topic, all looking at privilege and progression and how those two things are intertwined.  They're definitely worth looking at.  And then I wanted to sort of come to a close by connecting the dots between psychological safety and the right kind of role.  And I think my assumption is that we need the psychological safety for intelligent failure.  It feels hard to do without that condition or that kind of culture in place.  Has that been your sense as you've started to connect the dots between your work yourself?  And I've loved here a couple of examples of maybe anywhere or any teams that you've seen who have managed to both have that psychological safety, and then that has led to that intelligent failure.

Amy Edmondson: I'll back up and say that psychological safety, probably for the purposes of this book and this topic, is most relevant for people's willingness to take risks.  If you are worried about the consequences of failure in your team or organisation, the easiest way to manage that risk is just to not try things where the outcomes are uncertain.

Sarah Ellis: Don't do anything new, yeah. 

Amy Edmondson: Don't do anything new, which of course creates another kind of risk, which is the risk of failing to do anything great, or obsolescence downstream.  But so, the most important reason why you need psychological safety is to be willing to take risks, to do things that may not work out perfectly the first time.  But also, psychological safety has great relevance for the other kinds of failure too, because many basic failures can be prevented if someone is willing to speak up, and the same is true for complex failures.  Most of the complex failures I have studied, from the Columbia Shuttle Disaster to the Boeing 737 MAX catastrophes, could have been prevented had people believed they had the psychological safety to speak up early with concerns and questions and challenges about what their organisations were doing.  And so, that lack of psychological safety gives us a straight line to those failures, so it matters for both.  It matters for being creative and innovative and out there, and it matters for preventing the preventable failures in our lives and organisations.

Sarah Ellis: And in a small way, we are a good case to do that in our company.  We're obviously familiar with your work on psychological safety.  We were trying to think about how do we help people to speak up fast, really about basic failures, about mistakes, essentially.  And we tested a few ways of doing this, and actually a couple of ways didn't work, but the one that has and the one that stuck is, we have something in our company called Mistake Moments, and the way we do Mistake Moments is we use Microsoft Teams.  And on the same day a mistake happens, you share it on Teams, it's always called Mistake Moment, and our rule is you've only got one or two lines to describe the mistake, but all the emphasis is on the learning.  So, it's like, "What was the mistake?  Give me enough so I get what happened but tell me what have you learned".  And what we find from that is it stops mistakes getting magnified in people's minds.  And of course, by everybody sharing and speaking up very fast, we can fix it fast; but really, most importantly, we learn together.  And also, everybody supports each other.  And it just stops mistakes being something that you fear. 

But I think we have less basic failures now in our company because we have Mistake Moments.  It took us a while to get there, in terms of finding something that worked, but it is amazing how, particularly I think if you're someone like me, I have only ever worked in very big corporates, big PLCs, and nobody used the word "mistake".  20-year career, I don't think I ever heard that word, really, or "failure".  And so actually, I think one of those things that we're having to probably learn for the first time is how do we talk about these things without, as you describe, blaming ourselves, blaming each other, feeling like we're doing a bad job.  It's really, I think, about redefining our relationship with some of these things like mistakes and failures.  And I think both psychological safety and the right kind of role have really challenged me to do that, which I very much appreciated.

Amy Edmondson: Thank you.  I think our failure to talk about failure, ironically, increases the chances that we'll have failure, so you really don't want that.  I want to be clear, I am anti-preventable failure.  I really want those to be reduced to as small as possible.  But I know we're human and I know humans make mistakes, so I know we're at risk and therefore we need to speak up quickly and early.

Sarah Ellis: And if you wanted to leave our listeners with one thing today, so people are listening and thinking, "Okay, right, I've understood more about the work that Amy's done on research, this intelligent failure sounds sensible, this is something we should be getting better at", where is a good place for individuals to start; and where is a good place for maybe organisations to start?  So, we'll have some people listening who will think, "What can I do?"  And then we'll have some people listening who will think, "Well, what can I do in my role maybe as a leader with my team?"

Amy Edmondson: So, let me start with individuals.  I'll say that you should pause to reflect on the fact that you are a fallible human being.  You know you are, that's okay.  In fact, you should know that your colleagues also know that you're a fallible human being.  They just don't necessarily know that you know.  So, let them in on the secret.  We actually can have more fun and like each other more when we start to just be honest and straightforward about our fallibility.  Just kind of start with fallibility as a sort of aspect of life that was designed in for a reason.  It can be fun to play with it and to get over the need to be perfect. 

For leaders, I think it's actually not unrelated, but it's like frequently remind people of the uncertainty that lies ahead, because that is a sort of recognition that what we do here together is hard.  We need to ensure that we have a clear line of sight.  If you see something I miss and don't share it, it's problematic.  So, framing up the reality in that way, frequently inviting people's thoughts by asking good questions, using techniques like you just described earlier of Mistake Moments or structures, little rituals and structures, go a long way toward lowering the hurdle to having these kinds of very productive, very learning-oriented conversations.  And finally, monitor your responses carefully.  That's probably the most important leadership skill, is to force yourself to take a deep breath and have the most productive learning-oriented, forward-facing response to bad news or wild ideas, or anything else that's unwelcome.

Sarah Ellis: Thank you so much.  And we always finish these conversations just asking you to share your best piece of career advice or your favourite bit of career advice.  Maybe it's some advice that you were given from friends or family or a mentor along the way, or maybe it's just some words of wisdom that you'd like to leave us with today.

Amy Edmondson: Well, I'm going to build on the self-awareness to say a great bit of career advice is to choose learning over knowing.  But really, what I really mean is choose the options with the steepest learning curve.  Don't choose the options where you think, "Oh, I've got that.  I'm going to be really good at that right off the bat and/or that's going to pay me a lot and that's good".  If you choose learning, especially early in your career, over proving and performing or economic immediate reward, the long-term rewards will be far greater.

Sarah Ellis: Brilliant.  Thank you so much, Amy, for that conversation and it lived up to my expectations.  We did have some failure right before we were about to start.  And at one point I thought, "I don't think I can live with the irony of this failing and then failing to have the conversation!"  So, I'm so glad we connected, I love your work, it inspires so much of what we do.  So, thank you for spending some time with me and our listeners today.

Amy Edmondson: Thank you so much for having me.

Sarah Ellis: Thank you for listening to today's Squiggly Careers podcast.  It was a really special episode for me, having the chance to speak to Amy again.  I hope she writes another book in the future so we can get her on maybe for a third time for the triple.  And I hope you heard some ideas and some actions that you can have a go putting into practice for yourself.  If you ever have any ideas about guests that you would like to hear from or topics that you'd like us to cover, please get in touch; we're helenandsarah@squigglycareers.com.  But that's everything for this week.  Thank you so much for listening and we're back with you again soon.  Bye for now.