Identifying and nurturing leadership potential is more critical than ever in today’s diverse and dynamic workplace. Bias in the selection process can undermine efforts to build an inclusive environment, potentially perpetuating systemic inequities and hindering diverse perspectives. This issue becomes particularly pressing when selecting leaders, whose influence shapes organizational culture and performance. To address this challenge, it is essential to adopt strategies that mitigate bias and ensure fair evaluation of leadership potential. 

Dr. Kimberly Janson is CEO of Janson Associates, a talent and organizational development company, and was named a Top 10 Thought Leader, Top 10 Executive Coach in 2021, and Top 10 Inspirational Leader in 2022. 

Dr. Melody Rawlings is a business professor, doctoral chair, and director of the Center for the Advancement of Virtual Organizations at Northcentral University. 

Their new book is: Determining Leadership Potential: Powerful Insights to Winning at the Talent Game.

In this episode, Kimberly and Melody explore the keys to assessing leadership potential, focusing on methods to uncover and mitigate bias during the selection process. By leveraging objective criteria, structured assessments, and insightful questioning, organizations can better identify and promote leaders who are both competent and high-potential leaders.

What you will learn from this episode:

  • Identify the three challenges of determining leadership potential.
  • Discover why assessments play a crucial role in identifying leadership potential and explore the valuable assessment resources available.
  • Uncover the key predictors of leadership potential and learn why job performance doesn’t indicate good leadership.

“This is honestly where a number of women get limited in terms of their trajectory, the problem is that performance is the most commonly used indicator of potential. It’s just a mistake.”

– Kimberly Janson

Valuable Free Resource: 

Topics Covered:

02:04 – The approach they enacted to come up with the book, Determining Leadership Potential

04:13 – The challenges of determining leadership potential that were uncovered in the research 

09:20 – Applying the ‘Leadership Blueprint’ framework to identify four main areas critical for determining leadership potential

10:59 – Limitations of this method: Observation of motivation

13:29 – How observation is a valid method for assessing leadership potential and a part of a multi-method assessment

17:49 – Additional assessment tools and resources in addition to observation

19:31 – Why job performance should not be the primary criterion for leadership potential

23:00 – Addressing and mitigating bias in the selection process

25:54 – Targeted questions and assessment for screening bias in candidates

28:25 – How to get a FREE book, Determining Leadership Potential

30:46 – Q: What question would we offer people to think about? A: If not you, then who is going to change it? If you think it might be you then figure out what you need to do in order to create this change.

Key Takeaways:

“90 plus percent of folks in all three studies relied on observation as indicators of their criteria. But the reality is people aren’t trained behaviorists.” – Kimberly Janson

“Someone who is really negative, or caustic, or extremely conservative, or very self-promoting; takes credit for themselves, so detail-oriented that they can’t elevate to see the bigger picture. If you have those in extreme, you are limited in your leadership impact.” – Kimberly Janson

“You absolutely can learn capabilities that help you look for things that tell of high intelligence or no derailing personality characteristics.” – Kimberly Janson

“But you are most successful when you have a multi-trait, multi-method assessment process of which observation is one and then balanced with other resources to help you with that.” – Kimberly Janson

“Performance isn’t a predictor, because what you have at this job, at this level, is different from what you need at this next level.” – Kimberly Janson

“One thing that was obvious was because of all these variations, it’s clear why so many people are mismatched and are in leadership roles when they shouldn’t be.” – Melody Rawlings

“If those who are selecting the leaders are not trained, or do not have the skillset to, or framework, to be assessing leadership skills, then how can they place the right people?” – Melody Rawlings

Ways to Connect with Kim Janson and Melody Rawlings:

Ways to Connect with Sarah E. Brown:

 

Full Episode Transcript:

Kimberly Janson 00:00

If we’re investing so much after people become leaders and they’re not successful, then the hypothesis was that we’re choosing the wrong people. And why is that? And so we set off on a quest to find out what the criteria was to determine leadership potential.

Sarah E. Brown 00:27

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the KTS Success Factor Podcast for Women, where we talk about challenges senior female leaders face in being happy and successful at work. I’m your host, Dr. Sarah E. Brown.

My guests today are Dr. Kimberly Janson and Dr. Melody Rawlings. Dr. Janson is CEO of Janson Associates, a talent and organizational development company, and she was named a top 10 thought leader, top 10 executive coach in 2021 and top 10 inspirational leader in 2022. Dr. Janson has written several books including Demystifying Talent Management, which was the winner of the Axiom Book award. Dr. Melody Rawlings is a business professor, doctoral chair and director of the Center for the Advancement of Virtual Organizations at North Central University. Together, they’ve written a new book, Determining Leadership Potential: Powerful Insights to Winning at the Talent Game, and that’s what we’re going to be talking about today. Welcome, ladies. 

Kimberly Janson 01:47

Thanks for having us. 

Melody Rawlings 01:48

Yeah, thank you. 

Sarah E. Brown 01:49 

So Kim, maybe you could start off and tell our audience a little bit about the methodology that you went through in doing the research for this book, Determining Leadership Potential.

Kimberly Janson 02:04

Absolutely. I’ve had the pleasure of being an executive in large, well-known organizations for more than 20 years. And yet in the nearly 10 years at Janson Associates, I’ve had the pleasure of working on the ground in more than 40 countries and working with hundreds of companies. And frankly, I’m quite frustrated by the fact that we have so many bad leaders in place and it has a ripple effect. Those people go home and then their dinners are impacted because they’ve had a terrible day because of their leaders, nevermind company performance, et cetera, et cetera. And so I took this mini-rage session to Melody, and Dr. Rawlings was my dissertation chair. And as we work through different ideas, I said, I think we have something here. I believe that we are shutting the barn door after the horse has left by spending, in the last year, $366 billion on leadership development. I think we have a root cause issue. I think we are choosing the wrong people. And she said, I love it.

Sarah E. Brown 03:14

Okay, so go back, quote that number again. How much are we spending on this?

Kimberly Janson 03:20

$366 billion each year in the process of leadership development.

Sarah E. Brown 03:30

No kidding.

Kimberly Janson 03:31

Woo. It’s insane. But it’s not working because if it was working then we would have a lot of leaders to choose from, from a strong leadership pool and look around or ask anybody. They’ll give you a quick story, a very available story on their latest encounter with a poor leader. And so, if we’re investing so much after people become leaders and they’re not successful, then the hypothesis was that we’re choosing the wrong people. And why is that? And so we set off on a quest to find out what the criteria was to determine leadership potential.

And the first study, we did three studies. The first study was a qualitative case study. Looked at a number of companies in one industry, the real estate industry, and interviewed leaders at four different levels in the organization to see what the variation was. The results were outrageous. In one company, there were well over a hundred different criteria that the four leaders were using. And that wasn’t uncommon. That was more common than not. And actually the CEOs in the different companies were more similar to each other than they were their own leaders. And so variation costs my time, money, and when we are looking for different things at a different level, then how do we ever build on things and develop a strong pipeline of talent? So variation was one issue. The second was that they didn’t have a clear framework, and frankly, they struggled to define the concept of determining leadership potential.

I came across in my research a framework that I thought was quite simple and powerful. It’s called The Leadership Blueprint. It was developed by Alan Church and Rob Seltzer. Alan ran talent management at PepsiCo. they’re a factory of producing great leaders. And so using the backdrop of the leadership blueprint, we incorporated that into the study as well. And the premise is that there’s some specific things you should look for. And what was interesting about the study is when we asked about those specific criteria, they said, oh, absolutely. And they’re very important, but they didn’t show up in the open question about criteria most of the time. So we had to disconnect because it was a qualitative study, we wanted a quantitative study. So Melody and I joined forces. We did a global survey, nearly 600 leaders with parallel on the types of questions and ideas we were looking for.

Great results, validated the first one, and extended it. And then I said, okay, well what are the CEOs thinking that they were more similar to each other in that first study? What are they thinking? And I interviewed more than 50 CEOs, so CEOs from Target, from Panera, Denny’s, Standard Chartered Bank, Builder Bear, Ulta Beauty, Footlocker, just a number of wonderful CEOs from around the world. Actually, we had a number of countries representing startups all the way up to very large organizations. And the results were consistent there. And that was qualitative, but we had a quant person working with us on the data to put it through exercises to make sure that the trends were statistically valid as well. Anything to add to that Melody?

Melody Rawlings 07:08

No, I think that covers it well, if we were just amazed about the variation that came back and how they determined leadership potential. And then the ‘Leadership Blueprint’ that we use to underpin the studies really was revealing too, in the areas that we will get into here and those are intelligence, motivation, personality, and learning agility. So I didn’t mean to jump ahead of you, Kim, if you get into, if you’re not ready to jump into those.

Sarah E. Brown 07:35

Well, those are the things that are common. Is that it? Okay. I’ll get to that in a minute. But before I get to that, I want to clearly define the problem here. So variation in criteria was one, and not having a clear framework was another. Were there other big problems that you saw that were impacting the ability to pick the right people?

Kimberly Janson 07:58

Yeah, I think a third issue is that people don’t have strong mechanisms to assess the things that we’re looking for. Okay. The most common answer, 90 plus percent of folks in all three studies relied on observation as indicators of their criteria. But the reality is people aren’t trained behaviorists. They don’t truly know how to look for patterns of behavior. And you only need to go and watch an interview to see how true that is. And so it’s not a criticism, it’s a tremendous skill gap that people are blind to. And coupled with that they’re underutilizing something that’s tremendously useful, which is assessments. There’s a large variety of assessments that they should draw on. Those were the three biggest root causes of why we are seeing such variation in our opinion.

Sarah E. Brown 08:57

Very interesting. So Melody, now I want to go to what you were highlighting. What is it that is common around good high potential leaders? What are those characteristics that… I assume these are the characteristics or components that the CEOs across these companies identified?

Melody Rawlings 09:20

So when we looked at, when we applied the Leadership Blueprint to underpin our study, there were four key areas in the leadership blueprint that we really took a close look at. And those are the ones I mentioned. So intelligence, motivation, personality, and learning agility. And when we asked the leaders to rank those, Kim had already mentioned this. And when she was explaining the studies, we asked them to rank those and they all identified them in the, when they were asked to choose from a menu. But when they were asked directly what a difference in their responses was, when it was brought to more, I guess more to their attention, they all indicated that these factors were criteria they used to determine leadership potential. So it was really interesting. So for example, intelligence, it was identified by 73% of our participants. And the top factors that they identified when they were looking at intelligence was critical thinking, strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and intellectual curiosity. So those are associated with that component of intelligence. When it came to motivation, 86% of our participants identified motivation as being used to determine leadership potential.

And in that area, they were looking for proactive effort and focus. And 94% of them indicated that they observed motivation. That’s how they assessed it.

Sarah E. Brown 10:56

Can you observe motivation just out of curiosity?

Kimberly Janson 10:59

You actually can, there are behaviors that will indicate whether someone has a big engine and for example, does the person keep coming to you and pushing for more? That’s a behavior; that’s an observed engagement. Are they willing to ask three questions after the fact because they want to understand at a deeper level? So there are a series of things you can do to test for observation, but it’s like I mentioned a moment ago, it’s not something people are trained to go looking for specifically. What melody is quoting are results from the global study, the nearly 600 leaders. When you go to the CEO study, those statistics go up to nearly a hundred percent each.

Sarah E. Brown 11:52

Interesting.

Kimberly Janson 11:52

On each of those four criteria. But, look at the contrast. When we asked the open-ended question about what criteria do you use in that study that Melody was just referencing, their top choice that they mentioned was emotional intelligence. Only 7% of them said it. So out of nearly 600 people, only 7% converged on one answer. And it was emotional intelligence, which is a part of personality. The second answer was problem solving and decision making. Those are skills, those aren’t attributes, those are skills, teachable skills, but it’s only 5% of the group. And then on the CEO study, the top answer was the ability to create followership and then curiosity. So the first one was 8%, and the second one was 4%. But then when we asked them directly about these, which is Melody’s point, almost universally in the CEO study, and then 75 plus percent in the other study said, yes, absolutely, it’s very important to us.

Sarah E. Brown 12:57

Interesting. And all of them were assessing this via observation. Did they believe they were capable of assessing this via observation in your research?

Kimberly Janson 13:08

The vast majority of the research says yes, that we rely on observation. A small amount said that we sometimes use assessments from a 360 to the Hogan, to the DISC to case studies for simulations. But that was a very, very small percentage of folks.

Sarah E. Brown 13:29

Interesting. So what did you conclude from that? What I’m curious about is did you conclude from your research that you can actually observe all of these things and make valid conclusions?

Melody Rawlings 13:44

One thing that was obvious was because of all this variation, it’s clear why so many people are mismatched and are in leadership roles when they shouldn’t be.

Sarah E. Brown 13:55

Alright, say more about that.

Melody Rawlings 13:57

So if those who are selecting the leaders do not have, are not trained or do not have the skillset to, or framework to be assessing leadership skills, then how can they place the right people? What’s the science for placing the right people correctly in a leadership role?

Sarah E. Brown 14:18

Okay. And that’s kind of where I was going is, is what was your conclusion around observing particularly these four criteria and whether you could actually assess it via observation. So is it your conclusion that you can assess it via observation if you’re properly trained? Or is it your conclusion that you really can assess it via observation?

Advertisement 14:43

Hi, this is Sarah Brown again, the host of the KTS Success Factor Podcast for Women. I hope you are enjoying this episode and gaining some tips and inspiration on how you can be happier, more successful, and experience less stress at work. If you would like to learn more about how you can take control of your career and do it your way, visit sarahebrown.com. There you will be able to download a free chapter from my book, Let Your Personality Be Your Career Guide. It contains information and exercises on how you can identify your unique interests, strengths, and needs, and translate that into career goals that are just right for you. Now back to this informative episode.

Kimberly Janson 15:42

Yeah. So let’s break this down. I think it’s a two-part problem. The first is they’re looking for the wrong things. They don’t have, they’re not viscerally clear on those four predictors of potential and therefore they haven’t developed the right tools and resources to be able to help them determine whether someone is intelligent, have personality derailers. Because in the personality piece, it’s not that they have to have a certain personality, they can have personality derailers that are polarizing and push people away.

Sarah E. Brown 16:18

Right. Give an example of that.

Kimberly Janson 16:20

Yeah. Someone who is really negative or caustic or extremely conservative or very self-promoting; takes credit for themselves, so detail-oriented that they can’t elevate to see the bigger picture. If you have those in extreme, you are limited in your leadership impact. You have a negative impact on the people around you and you’re often polarizing.

Sarah E. Brown 16:48

Okay. So if you accept that these are the four criteria that are going to be the most impactful for developing successful leaders, is it your premise you can learn the skills for observing it?

Kimberly Janson 17:01

Yes. You’ve asked the question a couple of times. You absolutely can learn capabilities that help you look for things that tell of high intelligence or no derailing personality characteristics. But you are most successful when you have a multi-trait, multi-method assessment process of which observation is one and then balanced with other resources to help you with that. And there’s a number of those that you can find. But I find that it’s the one two-punch that gives you the best data to be able to make better decisions.

Sarah E. Brown 17:42

Okay. And that’s kind of where I was going with that. So talk a little bit about what those other resources are.

Kimberly Janson 17:49

Yeah. So questions are a great way. In an interview questions I ask are things such as, tell me about a time that you were misunderstood and how are you most often misunderstood? People don’t know how to answer that. They have to think about it, but in their answer, they tell me so much that they don’t know what they’re telling or what are your hot buttons? And how do we know? And the person who answers very quickly and says I’ve had to really try to do some things, but sometimes we react to things and sometimes I have to apologize. Well, that’s someone who’s made themselves feel better about volatility. So I would want to pull on that string some more. Some others are case studies and asking folks in terms of how they would respond. The Hogan Executive Assessment is a wonderful tool to help people understand where they fit, not only in terms of common dimensions of leadership, but also derailers and against the norm. There’s some really good learning agility assessments out there that help you understand people’s appetite. Do they have a voracious appetite to learn? Do they assimilate information quickly, et cetera. So those are some samples in an answer to your question.

Sarah E. Brown 19:15

Okay, that’s great. That’s where I was going with that. So in all of the things that you’ve highlighted, I would surmise that current job performance is not the best predictor. Would I be correct on that?

Kimberly Janson 19:30

Melody, you want to take this?

Melody Rawlings 19:31

You would be correct on that because unless the job is the same, just because somebody excels in the role that they’re in or a role that they’re in, does not necessarily mean that they’re going to excel in a leadership role or a different leadership role. So, unless it happens to be the same. So, I think most of us who have been in the workforce or been in a leadership role for any length of time have probably seen this play out. So where someone is really good at their job or what they do, but then they get placed in a leadership role and they do not seem like even the same person because the job is different and they’re a fish out of water. So they’re not in an area where they have the right skillset or that they’re the right match to that position. Is that about covering it, Kim?

Kimberly Janson 20:24

Yeah, I think that was well said. I’d build on it and say, think about what we’re saying with these four predictors. We’re saying when people have a big engine, when with a lot of initiative, when people want to continue to reinvent themselves through learning, when they have an intellect that allows them the elasticity to deal with more complex things as you go up in an organization and when they have a personality that isn’t polarizing, et cetera, then they can immerse themselves into recreating themselves for what’s needed at that next level. That’s why performance isn’t a predictor, because what you had at this job, at this level, is different from what you need at this next level. And in order to be successful in a new environment with different things, you need elasticity, intellectual personality, learning agility and motivation elasticity. But the problem, and this is honestly where a number of women get limited in terms of their trajectory, the problem is that performance is the most commonly used indicator of potential. It’s just a mistake. And I think that’s a big reason why we’re perpetuating a number of these people who just shouldn’t be leaders, is they maybe are really good at getting the result, but they leave a trail of bodies behind them, for example. That can also happen with seniority. Somebody who’s been with organization for many years and they get passed on or are promoted because they have been with the company, but it doesn’t necessarily, just because they’ve been with the company for X number of years or longer than anyone else, does not make them necessarily the right match for a higher level position.

Sarah E. Brown 22:14

So I have a question. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is a big topic right now and I am sure it plays out in both the selection process and in how the leader ultimately performs. So this is kind of a two-part question for you is how do you check for bias in the selection process? That’s number one. And number two, can you assess for bias in the candidate so that when that individual is installed, so to speak, you’re less likely to have injected more bias into your organization?

Kimberly Janson 22:55

It’s a great question. Melody, you care if I take this one?

Melody Rawlings 22:59

Absolutely.

Kimberly Janson 23:00

I have a lot of passion around that space. In addition to chief talent officer for both Hasbro and Heinz, I was the chief diversity officer. And the reason why I did that work is because when people can pull their chairs up fully to the table and be their best self and contribute more, then the heterogeneous group gets better results all day long. But we are wired for bias. It is our brain’s way of protecting us. Because if we had to evaluate every single piece of information that came to us, we would be dead. The wooly mammoths would’ve beaten us and maybe crossed historical timeframes, but we would not exist. And so you then layer on preferences based on the effects of conditioning about how we grew up, where we grew up. If I have someone who came in from the same university I attended, I naturally lean towards them. So there is inherent bias in the assessment process, both for leadership within a company and then also when we’re interviewing candidates, essentially you ask how can we combat that? A couple of things, know your biases, be really clear, do some personal work to understand what your triggers are and what your biases are and cough them up and look at them and say, is this true for this situation?

Because sometimes they are, but if they’re not, then make sure that, and this is done best with the group because they can help validate an assumption you’re making or they can bring in different points of view to that same piece of data, but have a set of clear criteria that you are using that are objective criteria to help assess a person. And that’s why my clients love this succinct lens of intelligence, personality, learning, agility and motivation. Because it’s easy to eliminate bias from it. We can’t make a person smarter. We can like them a lot and want them to be smarter. They can have more knowledge, but they tap out at a certain level because of their IQ. As much as we like that person, we have to have the leadership courage to not put them into a role because things only become more complex. But that’s an example of how we can combat bias because we’re removing the relationship when we’re dealing with the facts of what’s required at that role and then how they’re performing before that or in similar contexts. Does that answer it for you?

Sarah E. Brown 25:39

Yeah, that answers the first part of the question. The second part of the question is, is there any way you can screen for bias in the candidate? So you’re not introducing even more bias to the organization than you already have?

Kimberly Janson 25:54

Yeah, absolutely. You certainly can do it with questions. What are some of your driving leadership principles that shape how you think about choosing other leaders? That’s a question I ask. How have you dealt with challenges in the past? What’s the most challenging type of person you have had to deal with? What’s some negative feedback you’ve gotten along the way? If you could redo some things, what would those things be if you could redo them? Those give you patterns of behavior. Those give you tendencies and they’ll give you nuggets for you to pull on to further explore. And then from those things biases emerge, they’re typically so strong that to a number of different questions that get to some of these elements that we’re talking about. People can’t hold it together if they’re trying to fake their way through. And then also, I’m sorry, also assessments. Of course assessments will help you with that process as well because they’ll tell you where their natural learnings and preferences are.

Sarah E. Brown 27:00

Okay. Alright.

Melody Rawlings 27:02

If I could add something onto that too is, or the case studies as well. So we have on our website, which will be shared with you. We have some case studies there and there’s at least one that’s on bias and it would help, I think it would, we can be telling to have someone complete a case study and read the case study, answer the questions. So that could be insightful too, to see where someone may be on and even as a self-assessment where someone is on their bias.

Kimberly Janson 27:32

Yeah, I think that’s a great point. And not only for that case study, but a good question to ask ongoingly, whether it’s the candidate in an interview process or the people who you’re considering. Take me through your thinking. Tell me how you thought about that. What were the factors that led you to that decision? When you can get a glimpse at people’s thought process, then that also gives you an insight into maybe where, what their biases are.

Sarah E. Brown 27:59

Okay. Got it. So since you mentioned Melody, since you mentioned the website, let’s talk about what that is. And this will also be in the show notes. It’s determiningleadershippotential.com.

Melody Rawlings 28:13

Correct.

Sarah E. Brown 28:14

Determiningleadershippotential.com. And Kim, you had mentioned that you might want to make an offer for our listeners here. Do you want to highlight that?

Kimberly Janson 28:25

I do. Melody and I are so excited to change the world. We are frustrated that people suffer at the hins of people who shouldn’t be in leadership roles, which is why we wrote the book that you mentioned and why we built the website. The website is full of free resources around interview questions. All three of the white papers for each of the studies are on that website as well. We have after chapter reviews to help people focus on key things. They’ll go up today, I believe, interview questions help you assess each of the four dynamics. And so in order to spread the work and the word, we would like to offer a book to the first five people who go on the website and complete the contact form. And in that contact form, give us your address as well and we will respond and send a book to you. And the books just hit the, they wrote off the press, they just hit the doors last week. So it’s just such a timely opportunity to be with you today.

Sarah E. Brown 29:33

So we’ll get them to reference in that contact form that they heard you on the KTS Success Factor Podcast for Women. So the first five will get a free book and I commend this website to you for additional resources determiningleadershippotential.com and also the book Determining Leadership Potential: Powerful Insights to Winning at the Talent Game. So Melody and Kim, is there anything that I should have asked you that I didn’t that will help our listeners understand this problem and how to avoid it going forward?

Kimberly Janson 30:08

You want me to take that first, Melody?

Melody Rawlings 30:10

I thought your questions were terrific. I thought they were right; spot on. And helping us highlight the, or you bring out the highlights of the book and what we want the takeaways to be is, and people can get better at determining leadership potential. In fact, we must get better at determining leadership potential. As Kim noted, people suffer at the hands of those who should not be in leadership positions. I think we all probably have it sometime or another if we’ve been in the workforce long enough. And so we have to get better. And as Kim mentioned, that’s our goal with this book.

Sarah E. Brown 30:44

Kim, do you have anything to say?

Kim Janson 30:46

Yeah, I guess an answer to your question of what question should you have asked, I would suggest maybe what question we would offer people to think about. And I would leave your audience with this question, which is if not you, then who is going to change it? If you think it might be you then figure out what you need to do in order to create this change. It’s not someone else’s problem. We see it in churches, government, and private sector education. It’s rampant. We’re doing a terrible job in this space. And if not you to create this change, then who? And if you think you might be inclined, then ask yourself, what do I need to do in order to effectuate change? And we’ve tried to contribute to that answer by giving some research-based, well-proven guidance on how to get after that and start to change that reality.

Sarah E. Brown 31:52

So let me reiterate that because no matter what level of the organization you personally are in, you can play a role in this. You can be cognizant of these factors for yourself if you’re going for a leadership role and decide whether or not it’s right for you. That’s step one. If there are elements of those four factors that you can develop, you can start developing them. And if you are in a position of assessing and choosing leaders, no matter what level of the organization, you can take them into account.

Kimberly Janson 32:23

Brilliant.

Sarah E. Brown 32:23

So that’s how all of us can be a part of the solution so that we get the right people in the right roles because when we do, everybody will be happier, more successful and better. Understood my motto.

Kim Janson 32:37

Yes.

Sarah E. Brown 32:38

Ladies, thank you so much for being with me today.

Kim Janson 32:41

Thank you for the opportunity. It was great.

Sarah E. Brown 32:43

Yes, thank you so much. Thanks for listening to the KTS Success Factor Podcast for Women. If you like what you are hearing, please go to iTunes to subscribe, rate us, and leave a review. And if you would like more information on how we can help women in your organization to thrive, then go to www.sarahebrown.com. You can sign up for our newsletter, read show notes, and learn more about our podcast guests. Read my blog, browse through the books, or contact us for a chat. Goodbye for now.

Sarah E. Brown
Sarah E. Brown