A conversation with Peggy Holman. Co-founder and Director at Journalism That Matters. Co-author of The Change Handbook.
“I’ve come to believe that trust is an emergent phenomenon. You do not have to go in trusting the people that you’re engaging with. What I do believe you need is a shared question and it acts as a strange attractor. So to get at that, back up a sec and say my entry point for engaging was really a breakthrough kind of insight, which is that all change begins with disruption. And if you think about it, it makes sense because if things are going smoothly, there’s no reason for change. And so, for me, the question became, how do you develop a healthy relationship with disruption? And what I have found is that you can create a bubble in disruption, create a space, facilitators, often call it a container that it’s a space that holds both compassion and complexity, is the way I think about it.” – Peggy Holman
In this episode of Control the Room, I had the pleasure of speaking with Peggy Holman about her work supporting diverse groups to face complex issues. She begins with how and why she transitioned from software systems to people systems. Later, Peggy shares her three keys for creating space that holds compassion and complexity. We also discuss the importance of setting clear intentions. Listen in for tips on how to create hubs to help navigate complexity.
Show Highlights
[1:30] How Peggy Got Her Start Facilitating Dialog.
[12:10] Leveraging Diversity Of Systems
[18:30] Tapping Into Emerging Coherence
[23:00] The Problem With Defining Deliverables In Advance
[30:25] Welcoming Divergent Voices
[33:45] Taking Responsibility For The Things You Love
Links | Resources
Peggy on LinkedIn
Peggy on Twitter
Peggy on Facebook
About the Guest
Peggy Holman supports diverse groups to face complex issues by turning presentation into conversation and passivity into participation. With a background in software development, Peggy found herself more challenged and nourished by working with human systems. In The Change Handbook, Holman & her co-authors profile 61 practices that engage people in creating their desired future. Her award-winning Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity provides a roadmap for tackling complex challenges through stories, principles, and practices. Holman is a co-founder of Journalism That Matters, a nonprofit that supports and equips the adventurers who transform relationships between communities and journalism for a strong, inclusive democracy.
About Voltage Control
Voltage Control is a change agency that helps enterprises sustain innovation and teams work better together with custom-designed meetings and workshops, both in-person and virtual. Our master facilitators offer trusted guidance and custom coaching to companies who want to transform ineffective meetings, reignite stalled projects, and cut through assumptions. Based in Austin, Voltage Control designs and leads public and private workshops that range from small meetings to large conference-style gatherings.
Subscribe to Podcast
Engage Control The Room
Voltage Control on the Web
Contact Voltage Control
Full Transcript
Douglas: Welcome to the Control The Room podcast. A series devoted to the exploration of meeting culture and uncovering cures to the common meeting. Some meetings have tight control and others are loose. To control the room means achieving outcomes while striking a balance between imposing and removing structure, asserting and distributing power, leaning in and leaning out all in the service of having a truly magical meeting. Thanks for listening. If you’d like to join us live for a session sometime, you can join our weekly Control The Room Facilitation Lab. It’s a free event to meet fellow facilitators and explore new techniques so you can apply the things you learn in the podcast in real time with other facilitators. Sign up today at voltagecontrol.com/facilitation-lab.
If you’d like to learn more about my book Magical Meetings, you can download the Magical Meetings, Quick Start Guide, a free PDF reference with some of the most important pieces of advice from the book. Download a copy today at magicalmeetings.com.
Today I’m with Peggy Holman who helps diverse groups creatively engage complex challenges. She’s also the author of Engaging Emergence, Turning Upheaval Into Opportunity and co-author of the Change Handbook. Welcome to the show Peggy.
Peggy: Good, thank you. It’s great to be here.
Douglas: As usual, let’s start by hearing a little bit about how you got your start in this work of emergence and change.
Peggy: I kind of stumbled into it by accident. When I started my working life, it was in software and went from programmer to systems analyst and ultimately was managing software development for US West New Vector Group in the early days of the cellular phone industry. And at that time the industry, as you can imagine, was in a constant state of upheaval and inventing and things were always a mess. And we hired this expert in something called total quality and that had been really key in the seventies and eighties in the auto industry in particular. And this guy was adapting principles of total quality to service industries like telephone companies. And we had a project that was on the rocks because it touched every… We were replacing our customer records and billing system and in the process of doing that everybody was mad at us because that’s a system that touches every part of the company.
And he offered to come in and run a multi-stakeholder meeting, a term I’d never heard before. And in the course of a two hour meeting, we went from everybody yelling at each other to having an agreement on a path forward. And I thought if I knew more about that, we’d be better at delivering software. And I literally changed fields, started learning about facilitation and in the process of doing that, actually about half the books behind me were things that I read in that first year. But in the process of doing that, I stumbled into this really interesting process called Open Space Technology. And Open Space is a process that basically is based inviting people to take responsibility for what they love and it supports them in self-organizing to get stuff done. And I was part of organizing a meeting within US West, the big telephone company in the state of Arizona after there’d been flooding and system failure.
And so we brought together 250 people for two and a half days and they were from across the system. We had network technicians and network engineers and managers of all sorts. And over the course of those two and a half days I saw something that I didn’t know was possible, which was the needs of individuals and the needs of the whole organization can both be met. And that was jaw-dropping and magical and enormously productive. I mean it was like this group of 250 people that had been at each other’s throats. Everyone across the board agreed on their goal, which was the need to rehab the basic plant. This was a time of technology transition and so they hadn’t been repairing the old but hadn’t quite been investing in the new and so things were falling apart. I remember at that meeting this one guy talking about he was a guy who climbed telephone poles and he’d hosted a session during this Open Space and talking about having been entrusted to run a meeting.
It was a new experience for him and tremendously empowering or there were a group of supervisors who got together from different departments and what they discovered, they were always at each other’s throats and they discovered that their goals were written such that by definition they were in conflict. And they came up with this agreement with each other to walk in each other’s shoes and do some trading of people on each other’s teams to understand each other’s worlds better. So the upshot was as a result of this time together, people could see the whole system, experience it in a way that they never had. And one of my favorite examples of that was there was this union guy supporting hiring outside contractors, which was a major no-no because they now understood that was a way to free up the people on staff to redesign and rehab the basic plant, this thing that everybody agreed to.
So that meeting in many ways is a starting point for me. And I started learning about these really interesting practices that engaged the ordinary people of a system, the diversity of people of a system in imagining the future that they want in creating it. And that actually led to my leaving software, learning about all of these really interesting practices like something called appreciative inquiry, which is a facilitation practice based in storytelling and discovering strengths and possibilities that move people to action. And that’s what led to doing the Change Handbook, which is this edited collection of approaches to do what I’m talking about, systemic approaches that engaged the diversity of a system in creating a desired future. Anyway, the first edition of the book came out in 1999 and it had 18 practices in it. That was the first edition. And our publisher asked us to do a second edition, which we did about, let’s see, it was 2007 and it went from 18 practices to 61.
The book more than doubled in size. And it drove me crazy because here were all of these really interesting methods that involve the people of a system in creating their desired future. And for me, we were trying to catalog something that defied being cataloged and it’s what led me to do Engaging Emergence, which was about what are the underlying principles of change that enable a group, particularly one that’s conflicted or dealing with a complex issue to use their just differences in creative ways. And that’s the work I’ve been doing for the last, I don’t know, 30 years I guess at this point.
Douglas: Amazing. There’s so much there. It’s hard to pick where to dig in. But one thing that struck out to me is, you mentioned a couple times these groups at each other’s throats and how they could begin to see the whole system. And I want to discuss one little thing you said around that point, which is this trust piece, that they trust each other or could they develop trust in these spaces. And I wanted to understand a little bit more about what you’ve begun to understand about trust and how that can unfold in the space.
Peggy: I’ve come to believe that trust is an emergent phenomenon. You do not have to go in trusting the people that you’re engaging with. What I do believe you need is a shared question and it acts as a strange attractor. So to get at that, back up a sec and say my entry point for engaging was really a breakthrough kind of insight, which is that all change begins with disruption. And if you think about it, it makes sense because if things are going smoothly, there’s no reason for change. And so for me the question became how do you develop a healthy relationship with disruption? And what I have found is that you can create a bubble in disruption, create a space, facilitators, often call it a container that it’s a space that holds both compassion and complexity, is the way I think about it. And I find three entry conditions that enable the creation of such a space.
And the first one, what I was just talking about is a possibility oriented purpose. So how do you find a question that is attractive enough that it draws the people who care? Because the second piece of that is how do you get the diversity of people who have a stake in that question together? And I keep having pop into my mind an example actually from an effort a number of years back to create what he was calling a transpartisan movement in politics. And this was before things had gotten this toxic that this was somebody who actually had a Conservative background and wanted to bring together not just Democrats and Republicans but Libertarians and people across greens, people across the whole political spectrum.
And there was this one particular time that they wanted to bring together people who cared about the environment but Conservatives that was not something they would trust. They saw that as a Liberal, what we would now think of as climate change. And so they went out and did a lot of listening to how do Conservatives talk about this? And it was in terms of energy security. And so the question that they came up with is how do we have energy security that’s good for the environment? And it was a question that drew people who didn’t necessarily trust each other together but cared about the intersection of that question.
Douglas: Yeah, it’s like finding that intersection of our beliefs. At the core, where do things connect? Because to your point earlier, when the goals are in conflict, the game is rigged against us and we may have a higher level purpose and a higher level goal that we’re all seeking toward. But if our goals of lower grain size are conflicting, that’ll never be an efficient machine that can reach those higher level goals.
Peggy: So part of the art is coming to a question that’s an attractive to all and then being mindful and actually these two things dance with each other of who needs to be in the room for that conversation. And part of the art of course, coming to the question is bringing the different pieces of the system together. So the question itself may evolve as you begin to shape the nature of a convening. In terms of inviting who makes up the diversity of the system, I often turn to my future search colleagues, future search being another one of these practices that engage the whole system. And they’re very mindful about the inviting and have a great rubric that they use to answer the question, who makes up the system? They suggest looking for the people who are in, the people with authority, resources, expertise, information, and need.
And it’s interesting, need is the one that often gets left out. I did a convening a few years back around homelessness, which the question was how do we mobilize compassion, creativity, and community to address homelessness? Because again, we always look for a possibility oriented framing and having homeless people in the session was actually kind of a breakthrough. Anyway, looking for the people who are in. And then I always bring in another dimension which has to do with the demographics because our different cultural backgrounds and mindsets are very much shaped by our demographics. And I often borrow from my friends at the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, which developed what it calls fault lines and let’s see if I can remember these gender, geography, generation, race and socioeconomic standards.
And they used to have what they called fissures, but that I think have unfortunately grown into full grown fault lines of politics and religion. And I also add ability. And in looking at who needs to be in the room, it’s not necessarily that you need the whole of that, but given the context and the question that you’re asking and look at those to say who needs to be involved.
Douglas: I think you make a great point there. You don’t have to hit all of them like check boxes, but using it as a heuristic can make a great way to unlock the mental blocks we have on who we’re not thinking about that we could bring into the session.
Peggy: And it makes a whole huge difference because of course, particularly again, people may not trust each other when they walk into the room, but if they care about the question and are willing to show up, you have a starting point. And the third aspect that I always pay attention to is to create a welcoming environment. One that sends a message loud and clear and it starts from the nature of the invitation that you write and how it’s delivered. Sending the message “you belong here” makes a huge difference in the quality of how people show up. And one of my favorite stories about that comes from a friend of mine who was convening, doing parent cafes using a practice called the World Cafe. And World Cafe has a setup where you have intimate groups of tables of four with tablecloths. And one of the things they did in this multicultural neighborhood where they were running these parent cafes was they had tablecloths from all of the different cultures of the area.
So when people came in, they saw something that told them that they were recognized and honored and they belonged in the room. So those are the three qualities I find that can create a bubble and a disruption, a possibility oriented purpose, the diversity of the system and a welcoming space. And in that then, because the truth is when you’re dealing with disruption, our first reaction is you want to shut down. And this is actually inviting people to do the exact opposite, to open up and by creating a question that people are curious about and care about, you create the conditions for engagement. And I find that has two aspects to it. It can be done in a myriad of ways as the Change Handbook more than demonstrated that this is the place of experimentation and creativity and messiness. But it’s a place that invites authentic expression. So the message I get when I show up is this is a place where I can be myself and speak my mind and bring all of my quirks. And it is a place that encourages to connect with each other.
Douglas: I was just talking with Eric Skogsberg the other day about how as facilitators we’re creating these imaginary worlds or these temporary worlds, I guess they’re not very imaginary because we’re creating them, we’re in them, but if they’re temporary and people are allowed to be different for a moment, and the hope is that we inspire them to want to make that their regular world.
Peggy: And I find what happens in this kind of wide open space of exploration is there’s sort of almost always a venting of some sort that goes on, people get off their chest, whatever it is they came in with, and then they start talking about what they really want, what can they dream of? What can they imagine? And then they start talking about how do we make it happen? Which is kind of the day new moment of this kind of pattern of disruption, differentiation, and emerging coherence. And the emergence happens in listening for meaning, creating those moments of reflecting together to discover what is bubbling up, where is there something emerging? And it’s like the example I was talking about from that very first Open Space I was ever in that the theme of rehabbing the plant came up no matter what conversation you’re in. And I find this is very often the case that people are actually hungry to talk to people who see the world differently than themselves in constructive ways.
And when you create the conditions where that happen, there are rarely more than a handful of things that bubble up. And sometimes it’s just one that everybody then can line up behind and organize in a way that you don’t have to do it in lockstep, but we’re all, it’s… I had a Boeing engineer once describe an aircraft as 3 million parts flying in close proximity to each other. And I find it a profound image because it isn’t necessarily that you need consensus. If we know, hey, we’re going that way, then the people who care about… I don’t know, it’s like in an emergency and the way an emergency gets self-organized. The people who care about caring for the injured can do that. And the people who care about dogs and pets and if there’s flooding or something like that, there are those who show up to care for the animals. And there are others who set up websites so people can connect with each other. And loose coordination with a clear sense of direction are often enough to move us in meaningful constructive directions.
Douglas: I love this term emerging coherence and I’ve experienced it many times. So I immediately knew what you’re talking about when you said it. In fact, last week we were in LA for a session and we threw out a third of the planned activities because of what was emerging in the room. And not only were these conversations emerging and these feelings and output that was provocative and interesting, but at the end we’d landed on, we coalesced on a thing that didn’t require any structural coalescence and that was some of the activities we threw out. We had closers, we had activities to get them where it to land the plane and they’d landed it just because of the space we created and a journey we set them on. And if we would’ve intervened then we would’ve destroyed all of it.
Peggy: Yep. It’s one of the huge leaps of faith in beginning to work in an emergent way. Years ago I did this work with the National Institute of Corrections. These are the people who run federal prisons and they had come to us because they had a really profound question, which is how do we create a prison system that is just equitable and humane? And in going after that question, basically we talked to them about using an emergent approach to find some answers to that question. And as we were in the meeting, the guy who had invited us in told the story of taking the proposal to his board about this and his board saying to him, wait a minute, you want to spend money, you don’t know what the outcome’s going to be and you expect us to fund this. And he said yes, because nothing else is worth the trouble. We have tried everything else, nothing has worked. And so we’re going in with a good question, inviting the diversity of the system and making it up as we go along because nothing else is worth the trouble.
And I found it both a courageous act and a profoundly powerful act that enabled this group of people that included ex-offenders and prison guards and people who ran prisons in re-imagining the system in a way that served everyone.
Douglas: Wow. Yeah, super intriguing. And I can’t say we haven’t run into situations where more courage would’ve helped because often there’s that ROI conversation and people scratching their heads of like, wait, what’s the deliverable? And it’s like, well, if we told you that then we would do all the work. The work is getting there.
Peggy: Ironically enough, you often sub-optimize by defining the deliverable in advance. And I think you can relate it to the change that took place in software. I mean when I was developing software, the waterfall model was the way that software development happened and you lay out your project, you put your linear sequential plan together and two years later you get a product that probably doesn’t meet the current need and the shift into agile where you can package things in smaller bundles enabled the possibility and object oriented and all of that, changed the equation in being able to deliver smaller aspects sooner. And so it’s the difference between having a set objective and having a clear intention because the clear intention gives you a path to walk. It’s just that it’s a much more loose knit walk.
Douglas: I love it.
Peggy: And you let yourself be tied together by a set of shared principles that emerge through the dialogue, through the ongoing being and conversation with each other. And I know things have shifted when rather than disruptions being pushed away, they become a source of curiosity because the lesson is disruptions are the opportunity for breakthrough and that the differences that we bring to them if we begin to dive deeply into them, become a source of innovation.
Douglas: I want to come back to something you were mentioning a moment ago around crafting the question that attracts and conditions by which people are going to maybe move into this temporary world that I mentioned. And something we found that’s really powerful is to model the behaviors and to be examples of what we desire and what we seek. I’m sure you’ve seen this in play. I’m curious to hear any of your wisdom there.
Peggy: The thing that I like to do to get at the question is whomever the original caller is, it may start with just a question with them, but often I encourage them to bring some of the other two or three other people who make up the system and to start with what I would call a check-in and ask the question, why do you care? What is it about this that matters to you that would make a difference? What does that look like? And the thing that I find… It’s like the conversation about homelessness that I mentioned earlier, we started with what would it look like if we were to actually manage to do something about this? And listening to what each person said, and I know it’s a real conversation when people’s eyes light up. That’s the thing I’m looking for. If it’s an intellectual conversation, we’re totally off base. Asking an evocative question that draws out both head and heart. And if you’re really lucky, the spirit that guides the person shows up to.
But as we listen to each other, there are always threads. And that’s how a conversation about homelessness became mobilizing creativity, compassion, and community because those were the threads of what people cared about and could imagine making a difference.
Douglas: And one of the things we talked about in the pre-show chat was this idea that you shared and seems to come from network theory, sparks some similarity to me when as you were talking about this notion of hubs and links and these people that are connectors almost and the role of these linkers and you even shared a story about someone that you cared about, but that their behavior was frustrating. What I found really interesting about that story was that instead of being just leaning into that frustration and letting that frustration overwhelm you in your relationship, you let the frustration drive curiosity and then to get to the underlying elements of what was happening there. Can you share a little bit more about that?
Peggy: Sure. And I suppose that’s an example of modeling the behavior I’ve learned in working with disruption and emergence that when I’m irritated about something, rather than letting it overwhelm me, that the best thing I can do for myself is to ask what’s going on around this? What’s that really about? What’s underneath it? And it’s in following that thread that I come to something constructive ultimately. And by the way, I do allow myself the time to get this or to do whatever kind of venting I need to do. I mean it’s only human. It’s just that I tend to limit, I heard once the phrase tell your troubles to the wall. And so I tend to limit it to myself and then take a deep breath, possibly even do some meditation so that I get to my own clear voice to listen.
And the thing that it brought me to in the particular situation that you were talking about with links was the recognition that this friend of mine who always showed up with meetings and brought disruptive things rather than the things that were on the agenda, was the realization as I began to explore it with him is he was showing up late because he was getting intelligence by hanging out with the people who were on the margin that were frustrated with things that were going on.
And so he would be bringing really important information for us to know about. And it led me to learn that when people do that, even if they don’t know how to do it very well… Actually it makes me think of another story a long time ago of this member of a management team that I was on in my software days who always brought irritating, frustrating things. And I finally got in the habit of asking him to go deeper with it. And it always, he saved our asses so often because he was often bringing the voice of the people into traditional hierarchical situation. And we became a team because I could help translate this thing that everybody else wanted to ignore or dismiss into something that we would realize, we better deal with that or we’re going to have a revolt on our hands.
So I’ve come to learn that when I’m on the receiving end to welcome that disruptive person by drawing out their story and what’s underneath it. And I’ve been talking more and more of late to people who are what I call link leaders, the people who do that, about learning the skills of translation and of listening to the group they’re coming into such that they can bring in disruptive information in a compassionate way so that it is more likely to be heard. So in a sense, working the issue of links from both sides of the equation.
Douglas: And you also mentioned that it kind of fits into this anti-hierarchy perspective because if you’re organizing in a way that reinforces these hubs versus this kind of full top down approach.
Peggy: And I believe that we are as a culture in a transition from, that came in with the scientific revolution as the way that to manage is top down, that things are hierarchical and that’s how we organize to get things done. Well, in fact, as we learn more about complexity science and the principles of complexity, it informs networks as the organizing model that I believe that we are moving towards. And as I was telling you in the pre-conversation, as I’ve studied networks and looked at them, there are two principle dynamics in a network, hubs and links. And hubs can look on the outside like a hierarchy, but the way they’re managed is entirely different because people have more volition of whether they want to stay in a hub. And so the two aspects I’ve found that enable hubs to function are one, clear purpose and purpose acts as an attractor.
And secondly, a welcoming environment. That the role of the leader of a hub is to create a purpose that is meaningful to the whole of the system and to know how to invite and to create welcoming conditions. So people want to stick around, it’s how communities run, it’s how volunteer organizations run. And as such, thinking more consciously about hubs and then the links, the connections between them can co-creative partnerships. So I see us in a transition and I think the technology that we have today enable more network based ways of organizing.
Douglas: It definitely resonates with me and what I’ve seen as shifts that organizations are taking or need to take as far as how they organize and how they relate. And there’s been a lot of research into formal networks and informal networks. And so these things are happening. Why not acknowledge them? Why not align to them? So that then we can, it just makes sense from a standpoint of efficiency.
Peggy: And frankly, I think it’s more natural to the way human beings work. The essence of Open Space, which helps a group, and it’s kind of my default frame for understanding how complex human systems operate. The essence of it is an invitation to take responsibility for what you love. And when people are operating from what they most deeply care about, you end up with constructive behaviors rather than people trying to undermine what’s going on. And suddenly difference becomes a source for creativity and cooperation rather than something that tears us apart.
Douglas: One of the things you mentioned earlier was this idea that a lot of folks are trapped in this kind of assumption that things are linear or controlled from the front of the room. And I think listeners would be interested in hearing a little more about that.
Peggy: Well boy, where to start? I mean, whether you’re talking about traditional project management, what is it? Plan the work and work the plan. There’s this assumption that things are linear and sequential and traditional approaches to facilitation are often controlled from the front of the room and they tend to squeeze the humanity out of a situation. And so actually I have a dear friend and teacher, Anne Stadler, talks about a metaphor using our hands. I mean there’s this way of controlling a situation. I’m forming fists with my hands here and we hold it in our control and that tends to be the top down, given order and expect it to be carried out. And then there’s the, I’m opening my palms now to create a field which tends to be the form of facilitation that is dialogic in nature, that encourages conversation. And that field starts with a good question, the diversity of the system, a welcoming environment and invites people to show up and engage with each other authentically.
And then there’s ultimately this way of holding, which we’ve dubbed the radiant network because the idea is there may not be an explicit frame that we’re dealing with, it’s the trust that we are actually connected with each other and it’s a connection we can viscerally feel when our hearts are open. And the truth is, even when our hearts are closed, when we’re angry, that connection’s still there. It’s just a greater leap of faith to trust that it might be operating. And I think that we’re in a time of moving from the top down control into the field of practice that is purpose based and the potential future is that more deep innate trust in our shared humanity.
Douglas: Amazing. And that does a nice segue into the future of this work if we’re able to make that shift into more humanity in our work and these different ways of organizing and being together. What do you think that makes possible?
Peggy: Oh boy. We haven’t talked about this. I have been working with journalists for a very long time and the place I’ve gotten to around that is the notion of inclusive, generative and engaged. And I think that’s what it makes possible. That we grow a sense of belonging, that we trust that our differences are a strength, such that rather than assuming the worst in people, we assume the best in people and therefore our capacity. And there’s an aspect we haven’t talked about of this that I think part of what happens right now is our default mode of interacting with each other is debate. And if you look at the root of debate, the Latin root, it means to beat down. And that’s what we do with each other. You’re right, I’m wrong. And it’s all about two sides. And if dialogue, which Latin root means meaning flowing through, became our default mode of interaction, which I think comes out of the kind of practices that we’re talking about where kind of the central tenet of debate is advocacy, showing up for my position and being right about it.
The central tenant of dialogue is inquiry, inquiring deeper, learning more, discovering another point of view. Because what I have found in years of doing this work is that what we end up diving into is a deeper stream of a handful of shared values. We all want a good life for ourselves and our children and a positive future. So the potential for me is developing a society that is dialogic in nature and operates in a networked way and where we see disruptions as a doorway to opportunity.
Douglas: Amazing. And just to wrap up here, I want to give you an opportunity, leave our listeners with a final thought.
Peggy: Oh, I guess I would say when you feel yourself disrupted, catch your breath and get curious and ask a possibility oriented question. And if more of us do that, we will become a more dialogically oriented culture. One that welcomes our heads, our hearts, and our spirit where both the I and the we matter.
Douglas: I love that, Peggy, and it’s been a pleasure chatting with you. I feel like we could talk for hours and hours and I hope we get many more opportunities to have dialogue and learn from each other. And it was just such a pleasure having you on the show. For those listeners out there, definitely check out The Change Handbook. It’s great. And the more recent texts as well. And gosh, think about these words because they’re important. Thank you, Peggy.
Peggy: Hey, you’re quite welcome. Thank you for the invitation.
Douglas: Thanks for joining me for another episode of Control The Room. Don’t forget to subscribe to receive updates when new episodes are released. If you want to know more, head over to our blog where I post weekly articles and resources about radical inclusion, team health and working better. Voltagecontrol.com.
