Building Brand Gravity Podcast

Steve Halsey: [00:00:00] There is another room where some of the organization's most consequential decisions are made. It's the corporate boardroom.

Matt Ragas: The C-suite and the CEO actually has a boss, right? Called that board of directors.

Anne Green: Today we're picking up that thread by asking, I think, another fundamental question, which is who gets to occupy those priceless seats?

Matt Ragas: Two-thirds of those seats are kind of already spoken for.

Steve Halsey: What does a communications leader actually contribute as a director that the board can't obtain from its existing, existing resources?

Matt Ragas: Never even thinking that a board membership was a possibility. And you know what happened then six or nine months later, or a year later?

Their name was then submitted and they were then invited

Anne Green: Welcome to Building Brand Gravity, the podcast [00:01:00] exploring the ideas, issues, and people shaping brands and businesses today. I'm Anne Green.

Steve Halsey: And I'm Steve Halsey. And today we're continuing a conversation, Anne, that you started in a recent episode about what makes boards effective, and taking it, well, into a different but closely related direction

Anne Green: We are.

You know, in my conversation with Deb Enright, she's author of Board to Death, we look beyond governance structures and bylaws and compliance to consider a board for what it really is, which is a human system. And Deb, um, I enjoyed, she made the case that every board seat is a priceless asset, which I certainly agree with.

The people filling those seats and the trust and the candor and the judgment that they bring into the room ultimately determine whether a board accelerates an organization's progress or unfortunately quietly gets in the way. And today we're picking up that thread by asking, I think, another fundamental question, which is who gets to occupy those priceless seats?

Steve Halsey: Well, [00:02:00] and you know, I think more specifically what we're gonna explore today is should more of those seats be occupied by senior communications and corporate affairs leaders? You know, it, it, in our profession, you know, we spent decades talking about and advocating for corporate leaders to earn a seat at the leadership table, probably to the point that a lot of us on this, uh, podcast are kind of tired of hearing about that conversation, but we've made a lot of really real progress.

And today, many chief communications officers and chief corporate affairs officers, which is a role that really seems to be coming on strong, they do serve as close advisors to the CEO, and they're established members of, of the C-suite already. But the C-suite is not the only room where it happens. Above that executive leadership team sits, as you know, Ann, the board of directors, the group ultimately responsible for an organization's governance, the longer term oversight, and even holding the CEO [00:03:00] accountable.

So is the boardroom the next frontier for the communications profession? And just as important, are communications leaders actually prepared to serve there?

Anne Green: I, I think it's a very interesting moment to ask that question. First of all, I've been hearing this conversation had by more very senior comms leaders.

I've been having that conversation with more of them. But also, you know, I've always said boards have to navigate so much across multiple areas of expertise, and they are truly navigating today an extraordinary combination of business transformation and geopolitical uncertainty and polarization and workforce disruption, technological change like AI, among other things.

And I, I think boards are also confronting risks that may not initially appear on a balance sheet, but they can dramatically impact enterprise value. So, and, and we've been hearing this more and more in client engagements, new business, but also just out in the world, Steve, things like reputation stakeholder [00:04:00] trust, culture, employee confidence, just, you know, the, the employees' role in all of this, and really the organization's overall license to operate in its environment.

And I think these are all areas, and we know this to be true, where experienced communication leaders have something truly meaningful to contribute.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, absolutely, Anna, and I think you hit the nail right on the head there. And there's, there's this important tension that's really at the heart of today's conversation.

Communications expertise may be increasingly relevant to the issues that boards face, but that does not necessarily mean that being a highly accomplished communicator is enough to qualify somebody for one of those board seats. So when you think about large public company boards, they continue to be dominated by current and former CEOs, COOs, CFOs, a- and other executives who bring that significant operating and P&L expertise.[00:05:00]

At the same time, as you mentioned, boards are also looking more closely at leaders who have backgrounds in these emerging areas and emerging risk and things like cybersecurity, AI, and technology. So that's creating both an opportunity that I could see and a challenge for communications executives. So we may have a strong case to make as a profession, but we are competing for a very limited number of seats.

Anne Green: Yeah, and those seats, I think research shows they don't open very often. Public company board turnover remains really low. We see that from some clients we've worked with that do research in this space. Now, it's funny, some of the research also says that every board member can think of a few other board members that they don't think should be on the board anymore, so this is a very dicey issue.

But when a position does become available, that person selected needs to offer something the organization can't already access through the leadership team or outside advisors or existing board directors. So- I guess going back to the central theme here, that raises a pointed questions for [00:06:00] communications leaders in our milieu.

If the company already has a chief communications officer and works with strong outside agencies, then what distinctive value do you bring? As a director, I think that could be a fair question.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, I thi- I think that may actually be the question or the defining question because, you know, a board isn't necessarily looking for somebody to advise them on, on the field of communications.

What it's looking for is someone who can contribute really to a full range of enterprise decisions, and, you know, they want, as you've talked about, uh, in your previous episode, that deep judgment, that understanding of big R reputation as an asset, you know, the idea of an impact on stakeholders and trust.

And the communications leaders who successfully reach boards and those that we know who are serving on those boards may be the ones who have really moved beyond being seen as that functional expert, right? They've really demonstrated financial [00:07:00] acumen, business judgment, and the ability to lead organizations through transformation, crisis, M&A or, or other high, high-stakes moments.

So in other words- I think the path to the boardroom may require communicators to be known as business leaders first.

Anne Green: Yeah. That, that's a great observation. So I think that brings us to today's guest and his new research. So joining us, and joining you in that conversation, Steve, is someone really special to Building Brand Gravity, Dr.

Matt Regus, a professor and director of graduate studies in the College of Communication at DePaul University. And Matt was actually the very first guest we ever welcomed to this podcast, and he has remained a repeat guest and great friend of the show, friend of the pod, and his work consistently explores the intersection of strategic communications, business, and leadership, and that makes him perfectly suited to examine this question.

Steve Halsey: Yep, and, and I can't wait to get into the conversation. He and I, uh, go back a long way, so, uh, it's, it's never a boring [00:08:00] conversation. And for his latest study, which we actually got the first sneak peek of it here on Building Brand Gravity before it's been presented at a conference, uh, published, we get the first shot at it.

He calls it The Board Game: Exploring Corporate Board of Director Readiness Among Senior Communications Leaders. So Matt and his research partner conducted in-depth interviews with 20 senior executives. 16 had served on one or more public company boards, and the group collectively had experience on more than 125 boards of directors or advisors.

85% had at least 25 years of professional experience, so really, really senior set, uh, that was used to put this research together. And this experienced group could speak not only about their experience of wanting a board seat, but what it actually took to obtain one, and how did they contribute once they got there?

Anne Green: Yeah, and the [00:09:00] findings, you know, revealed several important divides. The difference between functional expertise and enterprise leadership is one. Another is the difference between participating in a board readiness program, but then actually being selected. And then another was, um, between believing you're qualified and then articu- um, effectively articulating the value you bring.

And I think the research also pointed to some persistent barriers that you and Matt are gonna talk about. So financial and P&L experience remain critical. Communications is still sometimes perceived as a softer support function, which I don't personally feel is fair, rather than a source of enterprise leadership, but you have to articulate how that leadership is formed.

And then, as with so many opportunities, access often comes down to networks, relationships, and a willingness to advocate for yourself.

Steve Halsey: Well, and one of the things, uh, I found particularly insightful about Matt's research, uh, when he shared it, shared it with us, is that he doesn't really [00:10:00] define public company board service as the only measure of success.

Really identifies basically a broader progression that can include community and nonprofit organizations, family-owned businesses, private companies, PE, VC-backed companies, pre-IPOs. So in other words, there's a lot of cases and a lot of settings that communications leaders may actually have more opportunity to apply their expertise and make a tangible difference.

Anne Green: Yeah, so today, uh, we're gonna explore what separates the communications leaders who aspire to board service from those who actually achieve it. We'll ask whether P&L responsibility is truly essential, and what communications leaders contribute that a CCO or outside agency cannot, and whether reputation risk has become important enough, I think it is growing, to justify more communications expertise on the board.

And importantly, you'll also be looking at the effect of AI and the opportunities presented by private PE-backed companies, as well [00:11:00] as, um, I think this is gonna be really important, I'll be interested to hear what Matt says about this, some of the mistakes executives make when presenting their board value proposition, and then what someone can do over the next 12 months to become genuinely more board-ready.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, I'm excited to get into today's conversation about board service. But I also think it's not just about board service, but how our profession defines leadership and whether communications executives are prepared to contribute wherever the most consequential business decisions are gonna be made.

Anne Green: All right. Well, let's get to it.

Steve Halsey: For decades, communications professionals have talked about earning a seat at the leadership table. Today, more chief communications officers and corporate affairs leaders are operating as trusted advisors to CEOs and members of the C-suite. But there is another room where some of the organization's most consequential decisions are made.

It's the corporate boardroom. [00:12:00] And the question we're going to talk about today is, is that the next frontier of the communications profession? What would communications leaders contribute at the board level? And are we prepared to serve there and to take those seats? So today we're gonna explore those questions with a good friend of Building Brand Gravity, Dr.

Matt Regus. Matt was our first ever guest on the podcast, so he gets kudos for that. He reminded me I still need to send him our new swag, our coffee mug here, which we will get to him. Um, and he's been on several times since. His latest research that we're gonna be talking about today examines the experiences of senior communications leaders who have pursued, but not only pursued, they have obtained corporate board positions.

And he's gonna talk about what their journeys can teach the rest of our profession. Professor Regas, welcome back to Building Brand Gravity.

Matt Ragas: Hey, Steve. It's, uh, it's great to, uh, to be back. Happy, uh, [00:13:00] happy 50th. You've reached middle age now, Building- Exactly ... Gravity. Almost the same age as, almost the same age as me.

It's, uh, it's, uh, it's fun to be back and hang out, Steve.

Steve Halsey: Always, always a good, good conversation, and, uh, hopefully we stay on topic 'cause we could wander and talk for hours. But I guess to get us started on topics, uh, maybe you can tell us a little bit about the, uh, uh, about what led to the study and the communications leadership, and just a little bit about your, your methodology.

And disclaimer, we cannot talk about specific names, but I, I can say based on he did share with me some of the individuals that he talked to, and this is the absolute cream of the crop top of the professor. So maybe you can talk a little bit about what led you to do this research and a little bit about the methodology, and we can roll from there.

Matt Ragas: Yeah, sure thing. So this has been research that's really been, um, a year and a half to two years in the making. And I think, Steve, uh, a lot of our [00:14:00] audience listen- listening, you know, for what? 20 or 30 years now we've talked about how communicators need to have a seat at the proverbial table to the extent where sometimes it almost w- we almost wanna do an eye roll, um, you know, in reaction.

'Cause you've heard that at, we've, we've heard that at conferences. We've, we've, we've read about it. And in many ways now that is happening, right? So we know with the rise of the CCO and now the CCAO, chief corporate affairs officer, uh, at many corporations, we very much now are part of, uh, the C-suite. But one of the things that I kept thinking about is when we keep talking about, you know, the C-suite, the corner office, uh, getting inside the room where it happens, there's really more than one room where that action happens.

And, and as we know, there's also the boardroom And the board of directors, and the C-suite and the CEO actually has a boss, right? [00:15:00] Uh, called that board of directors. And we haven't spent as much time, particularly as academics on the research side, really understanding that intersection of, um, whether we call it strategic communications or comms or public relations in, uh, corporate governance.

And so this is very much, uh, in terms of methodology, this is a, uh, based on in-depth interviews, um, literally with help from, uh, one, a, a, a mutual colleague of ours who got us access to a board level, uh, database and basically gave us a view into who are actually senior comms leaders who are serving on the boards of publicly traded, um, for the most part, US-listed, uh, companies, but we also have non-US in these 20 in-depth interviews.

And what's their journey like? How did they land that first public [00:16:00] company, uh, board seat? What are the knowledge, skills, and competencies that are in demand and helped get them there? What are the, uh, barriers that are restricting more of this, uh, generation of communication leaders, uh, from serving, uh, in, in, in those roles?

Steve Halsey: Yeah. And I, and I think that's one of the things that's really interesting is, you know, it feels like one of those things you need to have those first couple of bellwether professionals to make that leap, and then all of a sudden, it seems like everybody we're talking to is now saying, "Wow, I've been, I've been counseling the C-suite for time.

Hey, I've been asked to present to the board. I've got good perspective. You know, I think as I transition this next point in my career, I should be on that board." And, and I'm hearing that a lot more and more, which is, which is really good. And that leads me to kind of start with, um, I'm gonna kind of roll two questions together for you here.

Kind of the first, what is changing in that relationship [00:17:00] between the senior comms leaders and the corporate boards on what you're seeing? And are you seeing that communicators are increasingly serving boards even if they're not in a formal director role, right? 'Cause they could almost be like these quasi-directors that are involved, that influence, that participate But don't necessarily have a seat.

I mean, let, let's start there and then we'll get into those that have a seat and dissect that in greater detail.

Matt Ragas: You know, if we rewind and go way back, we gotta give a shout-out, I think, to Arthur Page, because he actually was, uh, obviously a senior communication leader, but viewed as a business leader first.

And he served on not just AT&T's board of directors, but some other, uh, very large corporations back in the day. Uh, and so I think, you know, uh, what's old is kinda new again. Um, but that was extremely rare back in that time period. [00:18:00] Then we fast-forward, and what I f- what I found, Steve, I wanna give a shout-out to Betty, uh, Betty Hudson, who, uh, served for 25-plus years on Aflac.

Think Aflac Duck.

Steve Halsey: Aflac. Aflac. I had to say it. I had to do it.

Matt Ragas: Yeah. Exact- exactly. And all

Steve Halsey: our listeners are doing that right now, too.

Matt Ragas: It, it-- Oh, see, now we've, well now we've uncorked who knows what. Uh, but she, uh... We're going back to, like, early '90s, and back then she was head of comms for, uh, NBC, and served for, um...

As she will tell you, now, you know, there's a lot more pressure on board refresh, so a 25-year run on a public board is almost unheard of. But, um, I just wanna shout her out as someone that I learned through this research as being very, um, very, very pioneering. Uh, a second part of your question, I wanna point out to everyone, and you might wanna look up the term, and some of us are gonna be familiar [00:19:00] with board observers.

So there's official members of, uh, boards of directors, but we also see in the world of, um, venture capital and private equity, this is something they actually, uh, prefer in some cases. And then also through these interviews, I also heard about at least one of, one of these senior leaders served as a board observer through, like, an exchange of senior leader at one public company becomes a board observer at, uh, public company number two, and then, then vice versa, as sort of a, a developmental, uh, board governance, uh, program.

So board observers are something to look into. And then, um, as you and I know, and, and, and, uh, uh, some of, some of the listeners will also know that agencies have really ramped up in recent years not just their corporate practice, but trying to become more of an advisory, uh, and get more in that management consulting, [00:20:00] McKinsey-esque, uh, world.

And as you know, there's shops that specialize more in, um, strategic comms advice at a, um, at a board level. Uh, and so we're seeing a lot more, uh, yes, we're seeing growth in, um- our colleagues serving on boards, but we're seeing even more growth on what a lot of times is called boardroom e- engagement or boardroom, uh, advisory work by, uh, those, uh, those senior, uh, uh, comms, uh, leaders in our profession.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, I, I can definitely tell you in the, the industries that we serve that tend to be extremely complex and highly regulate- regulated, um, you know, we, uh, we, like what you said, we are moving very heavily, you know, into that advisory stage where so many of the discussions we're having, a- actually, in fact, one I had earlier didn't have a comms person there because it was with the CEO, the [00:21:00] senior executive, supply chain executive.

So it, so it really is, you know, in that, that consultative, um, kind of role. You know, one thing I forgot to tell our listeners is we're hearing it first. We are getting the first sneak peek of this research, uh, which, uh, Professor Regus will be rolling out in the next few weeks. But this is a, this is a hot breaking news item that you're hearing it first.

And, you know, Professor Regus, one of the things about your research is it gives us the opportunity to really move beyond, like, a professional's aspiration and look at people who have made that journey. So- As you look at this, as you talk to all these, uh, individuals, what was the most surprising difference between the communications leaders who wanted board seats and those who actually earned them?

Matt Ragas: You know what? It's, um, this certainly didn't happen ac- accidentally. They didn't, [00:22:00] um, fall into these roles. They didn't just decide also, Steve, that, "You know what? I'm transitioning out of my, um, operating leadership role, and now I'm moving, you know, in- into this next stage of my career where maybe I'm gonna be more consultant and give back, and I'm gonna do board service."

These are folks that the stories again and again I heard, they've been building towards these moments in many cases for 10, 20 plus years, where they've gained the experience, you know, maybe starting with if they're in-house, right, on different influential committees within their organization and working their way onto an executive, an operating, uh, committee.

And then also doing things like taking the steps of serving on public-private boards, maybe closer to home, nonprofit organizations, NGOs, um, governmental organizations, [00:23:00] and, uh, a lot of interesting learning about serving also on, uh, small businesses and, and, uh, private, uh, private companies, in some case, uh, PE, uh, companies.

So I think that was, um, interesting to see. It's not that they simply said, uh, you know, "I'm signing up for a so-called board readiness program," right? That's, that's, that, that really those exploded in popularity around, uh, COVID. Um, these are folks that were very intentional, um, with the board service they did leading up to it, and the skill set and competencies they gained that broadened them very much beyond, uh, I'm that senior comms leader that you might be able to already get down the hallway as, as your, uh, CCO or your head of comms.

And I actually bring, you know, an enterprise-level, uh, mindset, and I'm very much a [00:24:00] business leader and a counselor

Steve Halsey: So it's not like, uh, not like the NFL that you declare for the draft and, uh, wait and see which round you go in, huh? It's a little- It- ... little, little more of a paced process than that, huh?

Matt Ragas: It's a, it's a, it is definitely, uh, it's definitely a building, um, process. And I, I'm thinking of one, um, one interview, uh, that was very interesting. It was to, to hear someone, um, that, you know, expanded beyond, let's say, the comms function and served as then a chief administrative, uh, uh, officer, which we've seen in a couple cases now.

But their former boss back when they were the number two, and that CCO was then, uh, retiring Really helped coach them and gave them advice and said, "If this is where you're looking to go in the future in terms of board service, you should get your own domain name. You should launch your own website. You should build, uh, you should build an actual board bio and [00:25:00] a board profile."

Um, and really walked them through intentional steps that again, was the groundwork that was laid five and 10 years ago, and now that individual is actually on, um, you know, association-level boards in our field, but then, but then pub- public company boards as well.

Steve Halsey: Well, when I, when I hear you say that, you know, it-- I think that's a really important point that you're making, that candidates are generally not getting recruited for their communications expertise.

It's really that full body of work, right?

Matt Ragas: It's very much, um, you know, that-- And that was feedback also that was, um, that I heard multiple times, is uh, hey, let's be frank. In a, when you think of the composition of a public company board of directors, I would say really as senior comms leaders, if we wanna define ourselves that way, we're competing for maybe one-third of the total slots [00:26:00] available on a board.

Two-thirds of those seats are kind of already spoken for. Uh, it's gonna be, you know, a, a CEO, company founders, current and former, um, CFOs, um, presidents, people, people who have run major P&Ls, been presidents of business units. So that one-third slice that you're competing for, you're going up, as you know then, against other C-level leaders, CIOs, uh, s- you know, CTOs.

Um, I think if we're being honest with ourselves, we'd have to say, yes, we do internal comms or we may own that, but CHROs, human capital, the CHRO has maybe just as much a claim for that one-third slice of seats. And then with the importance of technology in enterprises today, and, and look at the world we're in with AI, um, the CIO, CTO, um, also has a claim as well.

[00:27:00] So, um, it's a, it's a, um, it's a lot of competition for in public company land. The other data point I would give everyone, we've been in a cycle now for 20-plus years. We've seen a, uh, decline in the number of US-listed public companies.

Steve Halsey: Mm. Mm-hmm.

Matt Ragas: Uh, and there's may- The

Steve Halsey: last piece out there, huh?

Matt Ragas: Yeah. I mean, so it's like there's not, there's maybe 3,500 to 4,000, uh, Nasdaq or, or big board-listed, uh, companies.

In comparison, there's like Multiples of that when we look at $100 million revenue public or private enterprises in the US. That might get us to like 20,000 different entities, if that makes sense. And so, um, it's a, it's, it's a-- The numbers are growing, but it's, there's a lot of competition. And then the turnover, the other data point for us to think about, board turnover, even though we talk a [00:28:00] lot about the importance of what's called board refresh, right?

Uh, average retirement ages have been, um, have been loosened when it comes to board service at US companies, and the actual board turnover's maybe only 6% to 8% a year. So you're talking that, you know, that's a very limited number of board seats that come up and open, um, per year. So that's like kind of the, you know, some of the bigger kind of macro picture that you're trying to fit in then as the, uh, that aspirational, uh, board director.

Steve Halsey: So, so I've g- I've got an idea for you. When you, when you publish this article, what if you start it with this line: "May the odds be ever in your favor"? Has that been used anywhere before?

Matt Ragas: I, I, I don't, I don't know if

Steve Halsey: we- Oh, well, I guess that's Hunger Games. So, so you've got- That's a- You know with board games-

Matt Ragas: I mean, I, I- Yeah.

I have had fun with the title of this study as, as the board game. Uh, but [00:29:00] yeah, there's a, uh, Hunger Games-esque in terms of, um, public company, uh, board seats. And I think one thing from this research for listeners to think about is a fair amount of these folks have also, and there's a risk reward to this, um, have agreed and have served or are serving on VC, venture capital, or PE, private equity backs, uh, sometimes called, you know, pre-IPO.

Um, and, uh, that's a whole class of companies that, um, you know, are earlier into their journeys or in, you know, a midst of, um, what we would call probably transformations, right? Which is also kind of a se- a, a, a sweet spot for communication leaders, 'cause we obviously help, uh, drive and push ahead, uh, transformations.

So that's a whole other world that I hadn't thought as much about going into this research that I realized, [00:30:00] um- fits the competencies and skill sets and, uh, senior comms leaders are, are getting more involved with.

Steve Halsey: Well, and, and one of the, one of the things I thought was kind of interesting, right? You, you, we, we, we started with the premise of, hey, we want a seat in the C-suite.

Oh, now do we want a seat in the board? And, uh, you and your colleague, uh, Professor Ron Culp, have been very, uh, prolific, you know, i- in really talking about business acumen as kind of a core element that comms leader, um, have to have. And one of the things I thought was interesting, 'cause you were kind enough to share a pre- pre-read version of, of the research with me, is that your participants really describe financial and business acumen as those are non-negotiable table stakes.

I guess my question here is, is direct P&L responsibility truly essential, or are there other credible ways that, that people can demonstrate their mastery of financial acumen? [00:31:00]

Matt Ragas: I think it's safe to say from these interviews, it, it was the top limiting factor that they identified. Um, and I can think of one of the interviews, and it was a, a, a search, a search, uh, leader who does, uh, you know, board searches, and they said, "If you don't get that direct P&L experience, you're not gonna, you're not gonna be in a public company, uh, board."

And multiple of these senior leaders figured out at different times over their career, I can think one of them ended up president of a new business unit, a former CCO. So then, okay, direct P&L experience. Someone else at some point in their journey, uh, also went from comms and transformation officer to then running a business unit, so again, direct P&L.

Um, even though interestingly in their case, I think their strategic advice was then to shut down, uh, [00:32:00] that business unit. But they, they gained that P&L, uh, experience. I think one thing earlier, um I've let some people, you know, I've gotten some sort of cross-checks where I've had some senior leaders take early looks at, uh, this study, and they said, some of them said, "You know what?

Maybe I should have leaned in more to rotational programs for in-house folks," right? So, uh, you'll be, you know, you'll be familiar with companies that might rotate that comms leader and let them gain operating experience in some other, uh, functions and business units. And sometimes that results in more managing or having, having direct impact, um, on a P&L.

And it was interesting to hear about, um, because I think sometimes we pa- we've made a lot of progress, clearly, in our profession, but sometimes we pat ourselves on the back a bit, and we need to be honest [00:33:00] that, you know, in the world of finance a- and accounting, we are still very much defined as a, uh, a staff, uh, uh, function, what sometimes is called a cost center versus, right, the, the business units that are, that are, uh, very much, um, you know, called a profit, uh, center.

Uh, and so that's, that's, that's something you have to figure out how you can, um, expand your... I, I think CCOs, right? The rise of the CCO has a much broader portfolio than that traditional, uh, what we think of with a CCO, and I, I think that's another way to get at making that case of the level of business savvy you have.

The last thing I would say related to this is when you're talking public company boards, you're gonna have-- Those directors need to staff, you know, uh, committees like nom and gov, so nominating and governance, [00:34:00] which our world folks end up on a lot of times, but there's the audit committee. So there's certain committees that because of the rules of the stock exchanges and the SEC, the regulators, there's a financial bias at play, right?

Where you literally on an audit committee need to have recognized financial experts You know? And there's some leeway with that, but that also then makes that P&L experience really important.

Steve Halsey: Yeah. Well, that, that gets important and that gets to kind of the point that you said that, hey, two-thirds of the seat are just inherently off the table because of those.

And that's an interesting point that you made about rotational programs, 'cause I know a lot of comms leaders that get into rotational programs that are more geographic in nature, but it-- that's an interesting point. And, you know, I've also known a lot more marketers over the course of my careers who then naturally transition into the role [00:35:00] of business president much more often than you see maybe comms people, which, which gets me to a point I'm gonna put out here that may be a little bit controversial, right?

So we're talking about what does it take to get on the board, the experience in the board seat. Here's my question A lot of publicly traded companies, they already have their chief communications officer. They already have their, um, investor relations function. They have their trusted agencies. What does a communicator, communications leader actually contribute as a director that the board can't obtain from its existing, existing resources?

And really, how does a role of being a really trusted, valuable advisor really differentiate yourself from the fiduciary role of a director? I mean, that, I mean, that's really kind of putting it right out there on a platter for

Matt Ragas: you. I mean, it, it, uh, it, and it's something that came up in these interviews where, where multiple of these leaders said, that are now serving as [00:36:00] directors, "Hey, any corporation worth its salt has already got a quality CCO, a quality IRO, uh, and team down the hallway or on a different floor.

Why does it need to be, uh, board level?" And then a couple thoughts to that. I guess the responses would be board level has now equated the rise of what's accountants would call intangible assets, reputation, brands, human capital, culture, trust, as actual assets that link to financial performance. So, you know, bigger, broader view, that's a good thing for us in terms-- A- And the multi-stakeholder view, right, the stakeholder capitalism view, um, yeah, there's maybe been a shift back a little bit, but that's still gained a lot of credence in boardrooms.

So that is a very good, uh, thing for leaders in our field that are looking at board service. But that alone is, is not enough. I think you're right [00:37:00] on, Steve. And so, uh, you've gotta look at, um, of these 20 folks, some of them not surprisingly to your earlier comment, they were CCOs, but they were CCMOs. So they had comms in the marketing, and they worked on integrated teams.

And I do think that that CCMM- CCMO role opened up opportunities where some of these folks then But got president titles of other business units in the enterprise and expanded themselves out. Some of these folks also built really deep expertise in specific industries. We're talking over 30 plus years, uh, in, let's say, I also observed regulated industries, tricky, complex industries.

And so-

Steve Halsey: Oh, they're my favorite. They are my favorite

Matt Ragas: That's called a GNS bread and butter. Uh, so, um, industries like [00:38:00] healthcare, uh, pharma, um, and really built deep expertise and relationships so they could truly be counselors and, uh, advisors. These folks generally had, had demonstrated deep chops, uh, with high profile, not surprisingly, crises and issues management at a high profile level.

Also, um transformations. We could also think about those as turnarounds. These were folks that have also been through not, you know, of course CEO transitions, but also major M&A, high-profile M&A, high-profile shareholder, uh, activism and proxy contests, right?

Steve Halsey: Yep. And you're get- you're getting exactly to the, to the point I wanted to ask you about is, it, you know, and I've been talking a lot lately in the last couple years of, and I call it the big R reputation, right?

And, and it's that idea that, that [00:39:00] reputation is a business asset, right? It's what walks in the room before you get there as a company. It gives you that freedom to operate, that right to exist. It exudes trust. And I've really found that there's been a lot of acceptance and understanding by both C-suites and the boards I've presented to about thinking about big R reputation as an asset.

And, you know, you're talking about, you know, transformation, changes, societal happenings, geopolitics, AI, all of this. I guess my question is, has reputational risk become sufficiently material that it may justify more dedicated comms and corporate affair expertise on more boards? Because the impact of if you get AI wrong, or if you get geopolitics wrong, or if you get supply chain comms wrong, is really, really significant right now.

Matt Ragas: It's [00:40:00] interesting, um, as you know, business leaders and boards think in terms of opportunity but also risk management, and that's the other R. So the big R of reputation and the R of, of risk and, and, um, and where those meet, and we've made a lot of progress, I think, on that over the last 20 years. Part of that is, as you know, a whole industry of actually measuring, uh, reputation, and a lot of corporations that subscribe to and are actively, uh, tracking those reputational scores.

We haven't talked as much about in this conversation, we also, and yeah, there's controversy around it, and in the US we've seen pullback, but not really Asia and Europe when it comes to, uh, CSR and really ESG, uh, is the concept, environmental, social, and governance, that, um, has also become, uh, [00:41:00] there's all sort of mandatory ESG reporting in lots of different markets now around the world.

And while we've had, um- Pushback domestically here in, in, in, uh, the States. I just continue to watch around the world where there's all sort of mandatory data collection and, um, reporting. And so that also is something that, uh, very much has become CSR, not so much as we know, uh, as a board level issue. ESG, yeah.

In the world of, uh, comms and, and, and IR and, uh, again, um, uh, ESG is really a way to monitor and anticipate, um, and manage, uh, from a finance perspective, risk.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, you know, with all, with all this, uh, conversation about the big Rs, you know, reputation and risk, I kind of feel like maybe, you know, my, my, my approach to new business [00:42:00] now should be like, uh, like a movie pirate, "Hey there, matey, let me talk to you about Rs."

Matt Ragas: When your last name is Dragas, there's maybe been some corny before where I've said, "No, R, starts with R." So yeah, no. I, I'm, I'm with you. I'm with y- I'm with you, Steve.

Steve Halsey: Let's pivot a little bit. I mean, this is a fascinating discussion so far, and one of the things you said earlier is, you know, and, and I, uh, and I, I made the joke about the NFL draft, but I, but I, I think that is a good visual concept to think you don't always need to jump immediately to the major league.

There may be one or two or three that just based on happenstance, career progression, like what you said, additional titles are in, are ready to make that big leap But, you know, there are all types of, of different boards from nonprofit and community to-- But you had said something that was interesting. Um, so my question is, are [00:43:00] private companies, PE-backed business, pre-IPO as you talked about, is that potentially an area that a lot of leaders may be overlooking that they should consider to establish their credentials?

One, they may love it, and it may be a meaningful way to give back, but it could also be a good stepping stone, because having talked to senior comms leaders that I know that are on major boards, it was that first stepping stone and establishing that credibility as a director got them to that next one and that next one, and it, and it kind of developed from there.

Matt Ragas: It's very much a, um-- It's interesting, uh, one of, one of these senior leaders is on a, uh, Fortune 500, uh, board, and so there's probably, um, former, um, agents- agency CEO that I think, I think we both know, um, pretty well. And they talked about how earlier in their career served on a [00:44:00] family-owned business in the beverage industry on, on their board.

Um, and, you know, gaining, gaining that, gaining that, um, experience, one. And then two, the other thing that came up is relationships. So it's a misnomer, I think I learned from this research, to think that you're gonna do a board readiness program and then they're gonna magically place you. Um, there was some examples of that.

I've seen some success stories. But what I learned a lot of it is what's called interlocking board relationships. And so, um, part of this current generation I'm also seeing is helping the group coming up that's on now the public boards and the private boards, helping to say, "Hey, you should know about Matt and Steve, et cetera, and here's some folks."

But one of the ways that you build those relationships, it's, it's just like that country club effect that also kinda limits our a- you know, would limit access. [00:45:00] By serving on those private boards, those nonprofit boards, the public-private boards, that's when people get to know you and see you in action and maybe see you then in a different light, in a different way.

And then, um, I saw these examples through the research. That's then they told the story of a CEO or a head of a nom and gov committee sees you in action in another setting and then says, "You know what? I should be thinking about then, uh, how about, how about Steve?" Uh- Yeah ... you know.

Steve Halsey: I like that idea.

Matt Ragas: For that opportunity, right?

Steve Halsey: Yep. Yep. No, I like that. For any of our listeners out there that have, uh, somebody looking for board members, the get to know Matt and Steve is a really, really good, uh, value proposition that I'd like to put out there.

Matt Ragas: Well, there

Steve Halsey: you- So-

Matt Ragas: There you go, Steve. That's, uh, I think you know with me that I, I tend to be a connector, and I always joke that I ha- I provide the unpaid, [00:46:00] uh, connection and advisory service, only, only half joking, for different folks in our profession.

Steve Halsey: Well, that's, that's, that's, that's what I appreciate about you as an educator and the, and the circles you run in, in ... Hey, so question, 'cause I, 'cause I know you, and I know you're gonna present this paper, and it's gonna find its way into a book. Yeah. And the book is gonna have a worksheet. It is gonna have really practical things that I should do.

So, so if we're giving our listeners a preview of what the, what the, what the Professor Rigas worksheet is, I don't want you to give all the secrets, 'cause we still want them to buy the books. But what should a board bio look like, and, and how does somebody, like, articulate that value proposition as being a board member, and how is that different than a CV?

Matt Ragas: Yeah. So the, uh ... It's really, it's really interesting. And yeah, you could plug this stuff into your favorite AI chatbot to get a, to get a definition and comparison of, um, [00:47:00] I'm gonna say the classic kinda comms bio versus the board bio. And the board bio is looking at how did you actually tangibly contribute over your career to creating strategic business value?

And you really need to figure out, have it framed, how are you demonstrating you have a true enterprise level, uh, mindset? And I would say then reach out to folks One thing I love about our business is, uh, we're pretty, uh, we're competitive, but we, we do help each other. Um, and so reach out to those folks that you see that are on those public company boards and ask for their board bios, right?

And, and spend some time, uh, with them. That gets into another, uh, uh, tangible thing that you need to be doing. You can't be waiting around that you created that board bio, you did that board readiness program, you got that [00:48:00] credential, you talk to your favorite, uh, comm search buddies and think that they're gonna magically get you on boards.

I heard so many examples of, of folks that sat next to someone on a plane, reconnected with a college buddy that is now a CEO, um, literally talked to neighbors, you know, in their building. Let pretty much everyone know that you are interested in, uh, and doing-- not just interested in doing board service.

And that was really, uh, it was so interesting. There were some other examples of some, um, agency leaders or CCOs where they had, Steve, like a, a, a CEO or a chair of a company, like a company founder reach out to them. And, you know, they said take those lunches, take those coffees within reason, and some of us I think are a bit better than that at others [00:49:00] with that two-way street, and it's not just we need things.

And they said they approached it really more as an advisor and counselor to that CEO or that chair, never even thinking that a board membership was a possibility. And you know what happened then six or nine months later or a year later? Their name was then submitted, and they were then invited, in some of these cases, some of these folks on public company boards, that, that was, that was their origin story, right?

Where they actually... That CEO and that chair was essentially testing them out and seeing, you know, are they advisor, counselor that looks at things macro and board-level enterprise mindset, and was then thinking about them in a different way and what they, what value they could contribute at a board level

Steve Halsey: So one of the chapters in your book is going to be, 'cause you've already talked about it, you know, start, start early, right?[00:50:00]

So think like five years early, start looking at the competency, tho- those type of things. But I, but I, but I predict one of your chapters, and this isn't in his paper by the way, I just, uh, he's a good friend. I just, I, I'm anticipating you're gonna have a chapter in there which you're gonna call something like the 12-month board readiness plan.

So if one of our listeners genuinely wants to become more board ready, what should that person do over the next 12 months assuming, you know, they've, they've been working on this five-year plan. They're ready, um, not necessarily to transition, but they're ready to step into a board. They pick up your book, Board Games: May the Odds Ever Be in Your Favor.

Um, what, what i- what is, what does that board-ready plan look like for them?

Matt Ragas: Part of it is, um, having the willingness and the drive and the motivation in making the space [00:51:00] in work life to lean into these opportunities and start to truly gain the experience. 'Cause like I said, it's a progression. It's also not a one-way, um, some of these senior leaders said shouldn't necessarily view as the end game and the brash, you know, whatever, brass ring, gold ring, the public company board.

Uh, right? That you can in some ways potentially create more value on a private company or an NGA- NGO or an association, uh, level board. And so my, my biggest piece of advice is, is, is, um, you know, when those opportunities present themselves or you, or the door cracks open Actually serve, actually, actually, uh, do it.

And, you know, one way is by simply giving back to our profession. There's, as, as you and I know, whether it's, um, the different cen- I- Institute for Public Relations, the, the, [00:52:00] the Plank Center, the Page Center, uh, the Pa- the Page Society, the PRSA Foundation, La Grant Foundation, right? We can, we can go on and on.

There's different ways where, um, that's, that's governance experience. That's not at, you know, the fiduciary level of a corporate board, which also comes with its own responsibility and risk to you. That's a whole other conversation, right? Uh, uh, personally. But, um, make time for those things. Like, if this is something that you think you're interested in and you wanna do in later stages of your, uh, career, then you gotta start building and gaining, um, that organizational, you know, I like that term better than corporate governance, uh, but organizational governance.

You gotta start, um, building that experience. So, so lean in, lean into it and, and start taking on more of this. And you know what? It'll benefit you, uh, and your own career and your own development, [00:53:00] but jeez, you'll also be helping our profession. Uh, and, and, um, um, you know, having served on and serving on, uh, different, uh, boards and committees in our profession, boy, it's, it's, uh, it's really rewarding, one.

And two, um, you also help build, um, friendships and relationships, and some parts, listeners, like, like Matt and Steve, actually, if you wanna go way, way back, buddy, to, to Page Up, right? Um, you know, it was really, um- You know, look, look, look at it, look at us now, uh, have- having this conversation. And I'm so grateful that Paige helped bring us together.

Steve Halsey: Yep. No, those are, those are good things. And, and, uh, you know, one of the things, again, since this is a sneak peek of the work, uh, I talked with Professor Regas, and he said if people wanna learn more, uh, about the study and that, to reach out to him directly. He's also being very, very coy to the last question I ask, 'cause I [00:54:00] know his book is gonna have a checklist, like, assess gaps in your financial, operational, and governance experience, and seek P&L responsibility beyond the traditional comms function, and pursue meaningful nonprofit experience, uh, find opportunities to increase your thought leadership, to find the kind of organizations where

Anyway, it will be a fabulous read that I

Matt Ragas: can't- It'll build, build ... You know me too well that

Steve Halsey: I- I can't wait, wait to see

Matt Ragas: it ... I try to be a real pracademic, as you well know. Um, and, you know, serve as a bridge and, and, uh, you're almost helping me, Steve, with a, with a checklist there.

Steve Halsey: Well, there, there you go.

It's, it's free, it's ... See, you gave from your side to really talk about, you know, from an educational and academic perspective, what you're seeing out there. I'm just sharing as a consultant and advisor some things to think about. So final question for you, friend. After completing this research, are you more optimistic [00:55:00] that communications leaders will earn greater presence in the boardroom or not?

Matt Ragas: Oh, you know what? I, I think it, it, it, uh, almost certainly, right? I, I don't need CalSTRS or Polymarket. If we were, if we were doing a prediction market on will the level of, um, senior comms leaders grow on boards over the next decade, almost certainly. And I think we're gonna see, though, even more growth with, which will be certainly future research for me to focus on, is gonna be boardroom engagement and access, right?

And so, um, there's gonna be, and needs to be for us to maximize our impact, whether we're agency leaders or in-house. Uh, and that's also pa- what came out of these interviews, and will be a follow-up, uh, study. Um, how to, um, you know, get on a boardroom agenda, how to, uh, build relationships and, [00:56:00] uh, lean into and get invited to that board dinner and that board luncheon and that, uh, investor day.

Uh, but no, this is, uh, we should feel very, um, positive of, um, you know, uh, we, we, we're very much now Got into that one room, we've got the seat at the table, and we're working to keep that seat at the table. We can't take it for granted. And now, to me, this is that next frontier of board service and boardroom, uh, engagement and access.

Steve Halsey: This is very, uh, very important research. And, and again, in, in all seriousness, hats off into really, uh, being one of the first that I'm aware of to really start delving into this topic as it relates to communicators and, and boards. And it's, it's a very important both challenge and opportunity for those at the most senior level of our, our profession.

You know, and communications expertise, as we've talked about, it may help someone stand out, but by itself, [00:57:00] it doesn't necessarily make you board-ready. And, and really that opportunity is to think about how you can combine that unique viewpoint and skill set around stakeholders and reputational risk and all of those things, which are important because so many of our senior leaders, they are actively on a day-to-day basis counseling their clients through really tough things that aren't just reputational, they are business level issues.

And if they can combine that with demonstrated financial literacy, business judgment, uh, enterprise expertise, demonstrating that ability to have a vision and help govern the organization, that could really open up some, some really amazing things.

Matt Ragas: I wanna really thank, thank you, Steve, for kind of, um You know, provi- providing, you know, an opportunity to, to talk about this research and, and I really wanna give a big thank you to the 20 senior leaders that made time in their schedule.

Steve Halsey: 100%.

Matt Ragas: Some of these were [00:58:00] folks, you know, that I already knew, and then there's other people that know who they are in the background that helped me with gaining access to some of these folks. And that's what I mean, because this was then, I think you're gonna find in this paper, it's pretty prac- it's pretty practical, and I think impactful.

And these 20 folks are really paying it forward, uh, by telling their stories and sharing, in many ways, kind of a playbook for better playing, uh, the board game.

Steve Halsey: Mm-hmm. Well, Professor Regas, thank you again for being a friend of the pod and returning again to our Building Brand Gravity and, and for really helping us understand what it takes to enter that next room where it happens at the board level.

And I wanna thank everyone listening. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please make sure to follow Building Brand Gravity. As I said before, please feel free to reach out to Professor Regas. He's happy to talk to you and share more about his research. Look for his [00:59:00] book. That will be coming to a bookstore sometime in the next couple years.

We'll, when that comes out, we'll have you back, and we'll transition the conversation a little bit more. Um, and please feel free to share this episode with a colleague who may be thinking about that next stage in, in their journey. So Professor Regas, thanks again for joining us on Building Brand Gravity.

Matt Ragas: Thanks so much, Steve. It was, uh, totally my pleasure.

Deb Enright: [00:00:00] It is an opportunity of a lifetime to serve on a board.

Steve Halsey: A board is a human system. Like any system, it can either accelerate change or in some cases, get in the way.

Anne Green: How to use systems and structures to drive success.

Deb Enright: If you start off with people believing that they're a charity, there seems to be a barrier to asking people to bring their best, especially on a board.

Steve Halsey: Welcome to Building Brand Gravity. I'm Steve Halsey.

Anne Green: And I'm Anne Green. Glad to be back on the pod with you, Steve. Summer is flying by, but there is no vacation for this podcast.

Steve Halsey: Oh, I agree, Anne. I agree. You know, we're still on the case, and this past summer has really included some really great conversations on this podcast.

Today, we're gonna talk about boards, or better [00:01:00] yet, you're gonna talk about boards. And I know that may sound like maybe not the most obvious connection, since our typical focus is on brands, trust, leadership, and even organizational change, but in some way a board is an entity that really encompasses all of those areas and a lot more.

Because whether we're talking about a not-for-profit board, a corporate board, or an advisory board, boards make the decisions that really shape the future of organizations. They set direction, they test assumptions, they challenge leadership, they uphold the mission. In a lot of ways, they're actually laboratories for leadership, and ideally they create the conditions for people to do their best and most consequential work.

But here's the tension. We often talk about boards in very, very technical terms, governance, fiduciary responsibility, bylaws, committees, assessments, compliance, and all [00:02:00] of that matters. Yet first and foremost, a board is a human system. It has relationships, it has patterns, it has dynamics, and it has formal rules, and a lot of times informal norms.

And like any system, Anne, it can either accelerate change or in some cases get in the way.

Anne Green: Yeah. You know, the word governance itself tends to sound really procedural, as if the work is primarily about structure and process. And like you said, clearly those things matter a lot. In fact, one of the things we'll talk about in the conversation today is good structures can remove friction and clarify roles, and actually create the trust people need to do ambitious work, right?

But, um, structure is not necessarily the same as effectiveness, just as compliance is not the same as contribution to the actual mission of the board or the organization. And I think what I find fascinating about this topic- Uh, you know, and having, you know, all of us experience with boards through [00:03:00] our clients and our own service and, you know, and colleagues of ours who are serving on corporate boards, they're often, if not always, made up of very accomplished people who care deeply about an organization.

Yet even smart and mission-driven and good intentioned people can fall into patterns that make a board less strategic or less candid or, or frankly, yes, less useful than it needs to be.

Steve Halsey: Yes. A- and you know, I, I think that's, that's where this human dimension that you talk a lot about keeps coming back. And a, a really interesting point of reference, uh, PwC's latest annual corporate director survey, I was looking through it the other day, and something really struck me.

So the report was released earlier this year, and it found that more than half, I got it here, the numbers, 55% of public company directors who were surveyed said that at least one fellow board member should be replaced. And the top reason wasn't for somebody missing meetings or that they didn't have the right credentials.

51% of those [00:04:00] directors said the colleague did not contribute meaningfully to the discussions

Anne Green: Yeah, that's been a big issue. It's funny, we've watched that report is called ACDS, and we've been watching it over the years, and it's, it's one of the top sources of data and insights from corporate directors.

And, and that's a huge signal, that idea that one of those colleagues is not contributing. And I think it touches on something, uh, and again, this is why we wanted to have this conversation far beyond the boardroom. A team can really look very strong on paper, but still not be functioning well in practice.

So you could have the right titles, and a complete skills matrix, and a robust set of committees, and a lot of full agendas, but if the people around the table are not prepared, or they're not engaged, or importantly, they're not willing to ask the hard question and challenge respectfully, or on the flip side, they're not speaking, or they're not mindfully creating space for others to be speaking and heard, well, you know, then the board's ability to serve as a true strategic asset is [00:05:00] compromised.

Steve Halsey: Exactly. Those are, those are really, really key points to, to cover. And, you know, just going a little bit further, just de- deeping- digging a little bit deeper into that PWC researcher, it points out to why these issues can be so hard to address. It notes that performance is not only about those hard skills and knowledge gaps, but as you talked about when you were talking about respect and ways of working, that in- that interpersonal dynamics, they really matter.

And a director's s- own style can affect boardroom culture and effectiveness. We've all seen instances where strong personalities dominate, or informal hierarchies get formed, and then quieter or newer members just kind of, you know, sit back. And then there's, uh, what I guess we call the collegiality factor, right?

Among the director surveys who think action should be taken, the most cited reason for not acting was collegiality or personal relationships. You know, I don't [00:06:00] wanna rock the boat. I don't wanna make you feel uncomfortable. Um, so in other words, the desire to preserve harmony can become the very thing that prevents a board from improving.

Anne Green: Yeah, that is such a real tension. You know, no one wants a board culture or any culture that's harsh or unnecessarily confrontational, right? Respect and civility do matter. But if being c- collegial becomes a reason to avoid necessary conversations, then, you know, and Steve, we've seen this, civility can slide into avoidance.

It actually reminds me of a few of our clients over the years, including recently, where we've had discussions with them, and you can see how a culture of niceness or of collegiality or of, you know, we don't have conflict, starts to hold back performance, but also, I think really critically erodes relationships and trust.

And you know, my feeling here is that all human communities and systems, we really need to think about the distinction between harmony and trust. Meaning [00:07:00] harmony, right, where we seek to avoid discomfort, versus trust, where we work to stay in relationship while telling the truth about what we see or what the organization needs.

Not always easy.

Steve Halsey: Yeah. Yeah. And, and I think, I think the way you've just phrased it there, that's a really good distinction. And it also connects to the broader theme we keep returning to in brand gravity, which is what gives an organizational weight? What gives it gravity? What wants to pull people into its orbit?

And it's not only what we say externally. It's about how decisions are made. It's how leaders behave when the stakes are high. It's whether the internal reality really matches the mission, the values, or that brand promise. And we've talked about it a lot, but it's also whether the organizational narrative is really serving as that true operating system.

Or if it's just a bunch of nice messages on a page that have real-- no real impact and no real [00:08:00] meaning.

Anne Green: Yeah, and I think this is all particularly acute in the nonprofit setting, which I'm gonna be talking a bit about in the conversation coming up, which is, you know, that primary context for the interview today, that nonprofits are human communities like any other organization, but the emotional and psychological stakes can feel even higher, I have observed, because people are there for a mission.

So when a nonprofit board or leadership team is unfortunately dysfunctional or too passive or too focused on process at the extense of-- at the expense of purpose, I think the dissonance can feel really painful. I have heard so often people and colleagues or friends of mine in that context say, you know, "We're here to do good in the world," and yet they observe this deep disconnect in how the organization is actually operating.

I find that really, really important.

Steve Halsey: And, and of course it, I think it goes without saying that we see this too on, uh, for-profit boards. The language may differ, but a lot of these human patterns, you know, they follow a very similar flow. So, you know, the key questions, are people [00:09:00] prepared? Are they asking useful questions?

Are they bringing relevant expertise? Are they challenging management in constructive ways? You know, are they helping the organization see around the corners? Is it maintaining the right distance between oversight and operations, which can be really, really difficult? And ultimately, are they bringing fresh thinking, or are they just reinforcing what's already there and familiar?

And I guess when you think about all these, it's really trying to ask the question, are they working together as a team in a way that ultimately builds trust?

Anne Green: Back to trust again, always. Um, and I think you gave me the perfect segue to introduce today's conversation. We're gonna be digging into many of these issues with Deborah MacFarlane Enright, or Deb Enright.

She has a book coming out. I love the title. The second I heard it, I'm like, "I have to have Deb on." It's called Bored to Death: Transform Your Nonprofit Board into a Strategic Catalyst for Change. And as we said earlier, I think this discussion will be [00:10:00] relevant to every type of board, and frankly to me has wider applicability to the overall leadership of any kind of critical team.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, so whether you serve on a board, report to one, advise one, aspire to join one, or simply work in an organization that's shaped by a board's decision, I think this conversation is gonna be really, uh, important for you to listen to, and it really gets into that human operating system behind governance.

Anne Green: Yeah, and as someone who's worked in and around board governance issues for many years, in a- in addition to serving on and sharing nonprofit boards, I came to this with a lot of interest and excitement. So with no further ado, let's get into my conversation with Deb Enright. I'm so happy to welcome to the podcast Deborah MacFarlane Enright, who I will call Deb.

Hi, Deb.

Deb Enright: Hey, how are you?

Anne Green: I'm very good. It's a pleasure to welcome you to this conversation today, and you know, we're gonna get into a whole lot of things, and people are gonna get to know you a bit better, Deb. But I always like to start by [00:11:00] trying to ground our audience in the conversation to come. So we're gonna be speaking about high-functioning boards of directors in the nonprofit context, but I will assert, and I know you'll agree that the issues we're gonna cover will apply to all kinds of boards, including corporate.

So to kick us off, please share a few critical takeaways that you want our audience to be listening for as we talk.

Deb Enright: Appreciate that, and this is so exciting to be in conversation with you. Sure. First, who should be listening? If you are in board management, if you serve on a board, or you aspire to, listen to this conversation.

If you want to fully understand from structures, systems, and stories how to make your board the most singular strategic asset in your organization, start to listen. To delineate between what you think you are and what you really are, how to leverage the expertise and experience of your current board, and how to shape your future [00:12:00] boards to help you implement strategic plans and give oversight, I'll stress oversight, into operational efficiencies.

Anne Green: That's great. I think that's a great framing. So we'll go back to the start. Now, Deb, first of all, congratulations, your book is about to be published. The title, I heard it, and knowing you, as I have for a number of years now, and knowing your background, which you're gonna talk about in a moment, I said, "Well, I have to have her on the podcast because I'm very interested in this thing we call a board, board governance."

And the title of the book is Bored to Death-

Deb Enright: Yes ...

Anne Green: Transform Your Nonprofit Board Into a Strategic Catalyst for Change. And again, I think as people listen, they're gonna hear this is very applicable to all types of boards, but also leadership as a whole. So share for our listeners, what is your background, which I have awareness of, but what is your background, and how did you come to this topic and to write the book?

Deb Enright: I started on my journey with parents who were involved in the community, and that bred an individual who knew that that [00:13:00] was important in whatever sector I chose, uh, to pour my talents into. It happened to be the nonprofit really kind of by happenstance. So first as a staff member in a nonprofit, then moving into the exec level, being a volunteer forever.

Uh, and then also moving into board work as a, as a member, but then as a chair, and then moving into a consultancy, um, position. And the reason, Anne, for the choice of this sector is there are people out there working very hard to make the world better. I don't have that kind of thinking to, to start something, but I certainly have the wherewithal to help people see their vision become a reality.

And so just those complexities of moving those things forward has piqued my curiosity for years, and that's why I'm here today [00:14:00] and very, very excited about this book.

Anne Green: Yeah. I, I, I think it's a great topic. You know, one of the things you said there, and we see it in nonprofit, we see it in for-profit context, which is those who found things, who have an idea, who have the spark, what is the journey from starting something which takes tremendous entrepreneurialism, and in the case of nonprofit, passion and commitment and some kinds of willful optimism in the face of some really intractable, huge issues often, right?

But, um, they don't always necessarily have the same skill set when you're talking about structuring and scaling. Um, do you think that that, that is really relevant in the, in the nonprofit context as you've observed it? Is that some of the dynamics that you're trying to address in this book?

Deb Enright: Yes. Uh, let's, let's hone into the word you used, which was enterprise, right?

So for me, think about the beneficiaries of the mission delivery. So if it's someone who's [00:15:00] looking for food, if it's saving pets, if it's planting trees in devastated, deforested, uh, locations, there is a dependence. It's not unlike people depending on a certain brand of food that they buy for their recipes or for clothes that they may buy.

So there's a product service or a program that people are going to depend on, much like a for-profit. One thing that I find infuriating and will not do if I am introducing one of my either friends or clients is giving them the nomenclature of nonprofit. If somebody has decided to help women in recovery beat addiction and stop the loop, um, or the cycle of poverty t- for reincarceration- I'm not gonna introduce them by what they don't do.

That's a tax status. That's not what they do. They are socially impacting this world and making it better. So understanding for [00:16:00] founders, you're starting a business, and that's not, that's not a bad thing. It's not a thing to shy away from. You are totally capable. Sometimes in this sector you almost get a, "Oh, so you're in the nonprofit world.

Well, that's sweet or nice." No. I mean, I have a friend, um, and his wife who have delivered over 50 million meals i- over 20 years in the southeast region of the country, and now have a national model for food rescue and food distribution whose baseline is about dignity. Are you kidding me? That doesn't sound like Oliver Twist or the match girl on the corner.

That sounds like somebody who had an idea and has now proven with a multimillion-dollar budget, warehouses, delivery trucks, and scores of volunteers that they get it. This is about providing a program, service, or a product that's gonna make the world better

Anne Green: That's really powerful. And I lo- [00:17:00] When we, you and I were first talking about this, kind of preparing for this conversation, that really struck me that we, we have this nomenclature, right?

There's words that sort of wash over us 'cause we know what their meaning is, and we don't interrogate them. So when you said to me, "Nonprofit, why would I define something so important by what it is not?" was really, like, a bit of a lightning bolt to me. 'Cause language matters, and the context matters, and the framing matters.

And, you know, as I thought about that more, I've worked, as you have, in many different contexts. I've had many corporate clients. I've also had many, you know, those with social impact or, you know, the nonprofit tax status, universities, et cetera, et cetera. And one thing I have observed that's distinct, uh, but I think it's at play also in the corporate setting more than we say, is that it feels like the emotional and psychological stakes seem higher given that deep focus in these kinds of entities on mission and values.

So-- A- and this is gonna bring us to the human aspect that we're gonna get into too. [00:18:00] So but when leaders or boards of this kind of social enterprise fall into the same negative patterns or interpersonal breakdowns that you see in the for-profit entities, I've observed that the cognitive dissonance can feel maybe more powerful and painful.

Like, I've had many people in my life who've been serving either within a social enterprise or on a board say, "Well, we talk about making a difference this way or serving communities, and then we have this dysfunction," et cetera, et cetera. Does this resonate with you, Deb? Is it something you've noticed as well?

I th- I just feel like the stakes are very high often.

Deb Enright: You've actually described the dysfunction in this sector. If you start off with people believing that they're a charity, there seems to be a barrier to asking people to bring their best, especially on a board. To say, "You, you need to rest up. It's gonna be work.

It's not just writing a check. This is not for your resume. This is because we feed people. We make su-sure [00:19:00] children are safe. We make sure that homes are affordable. This is a bigger thing than all of us, and so we need to pour that in." It's the how you recruit your board. Unapologetically, this is what we need.

We either need this particular sector, we need the expertise and experience in this particular sector, be it legal, human resources, facility management, the list goes on. It's not just about putting on a dinner and hoping to raise six figures. It's not about showing up and putting cans into a box and giving it to a kid.

It's about fully investing because your stakeholders, which would be stockholders In a for-profit matter, not more, that's not a discussion for us to have, right? I would say more.

Anne Green: Yeah.

Deb Enright: But all of the stakeholders are depending on you as a board member to make sure the delivery of the mission is as efficient and can [00:20:00] expand, to make sure that volunteers are trained and know and are proud of what they're doing, to make sure that donors slash, I'll call them investors, um, have a reason to not only re-up but to increase their gifts and do it for the long range, to make sure that strategic partners absolutely get what's happening and will lean in with their services and their thinking to make it better, and finally, to make sure that this organization, whatever level it's at, startup, in a growth mode, or in a legacy level, understand that people depend on them.

Anne Green: It's true. You know, it's very interesting you talked about that stakeholder question, um, do we define a for-profit entity as being mostly aligned around stockholders, which has been the lens for so long? I think it's been a nice evolution to see more discussion about stakeholder capitalism. I think that's been complicated the last few years.

Mm-hmm. I think though we're still thinking hard about that, that there's a range of [00:21:00] stakeholders including community, employees, et cetera. I would say, like, if people watch this podcast, the drop falls in the pond, and the first ring that radiates out is your own people. I like the thinking, though, of bringing that, uh, rigor, you know, of what is it we're trying to do for the mission, and who are those stakeholders?

And because, you know, y- you and I have talked about the fact, and, and you've said it in the book, which is, which is a great read, very usable, you know, you can come into it from any chapter and learn something, so I, I really encourage people to check it out. It's being published very soon. But, you know, serving on a nonprofit board requires more than just compassion and commitment to the cause.

There's deeper thinking about it, and I think you just spoke to that really eloquently. You, throughout the book, speak to four distinct personas, and it's almost like a user's guide for each one. The CEO, the board chair, a current board member, and an aspiring board member. Why structure it this way, and what are the breakdowns or misconceptions around each role?

I, I love that organizational approach.

Deb Enright: I think because [00:22:00] the material, the content, is for everybody. And my sole goal in this is it, it's a give back, Anne, right? So s- having seen it from all of those lenses, it, it was important for me to make sure that anybody who picked up the book would find something in it for them.

So as you have said, for each chapter, we delineate exactly for these four roles what to look for. And even within each chapter, we kind of punch out a little bit for the aspiring board member. It's important. I'm v- I'm very passionate about having good people Um, committed people, people who want to give their time and their expertise and experience, as well as their resources, and open their networks.

It is difficult for me to find a board with seats who I believe [00:23:00] every board seat is priceless Have it populated by folks who it's not that they don't care, but maybe that's misaligned. Maybe expertise and experience is no longer needed, um, or maybe they are just building a resume, or maybe it was a, "Guys, we gotta, we've gotta fill five seats by January.

It's already October. Do you know anybody?" That's not fair to the people that you're recruiting, and it is not fair to the operations of the organization.

Anne Green: Yeah. You know, you, you discuss, I wanted to zoom in on that quote, I'd written it down, that every board seat is a priceless asset to be filled with intention.

Um, absolutely, I couldn't agree more. We know just operationally and human-wise why that sometimes doesn't work. You know, I've worked quite a bit with, um, the folks at PwC, the Governance Insights Center, which are the board governance experts. You know, I've been, I, I've worked with them quite a bit over the years, and their latest annual corporate director survey, in the intro that we'll do to this conversation, Steve [00:24:00] Halsey and I talk about that a little bit, and they talk about there's, there's just a very large percentage of current board directors when they're interviewed that have the feeling that at least one of the other directors needs to be replaced, and there's a lot of feelings about that, right?

But, so I know that, you know, I don't expect things to be perfect in practice, but if we, if we would think that it's obvious to have the view of this is a priceless asset to be filled with intention, why is it that you feel that's not happening sometimes?

Deb Enright: It's not the traditional paradigm, right? The traditional paradigm, if you think about it, go back 100 years, 150 years in this country.

So charities really were a way for those with means to assuage some guilt, either for, uh, you know, public consumption, for PR, or because it was gonna work for them, or the tax code had changed so that some of their millions, if they deposited it within a charity, would help them. I mean, the 501[c][3] and the tax deduction [00:25:00] was born.

When you start with that kind of thinking, it, it really is, um, back rooms, it's, um, family trees, um, it is privilege. It does not, uh, allow for, afford for, or even generate any kind of representation on a board. We also, if we think we're charities, if we think we are non-profits, the only thing we think about, besides the good stuff we hope to happen, is how we're gonna fund it.

So instead of it being kind of an operation, a, a revenue, a development of revenue and a portfolio, we're just grabbing for checks. So if you know, you know, Mrs. Jones has a ton of cash, well, let's invite her on, and then maybe she'll give us something. That's been the, that's been the model. Or Somebody just has a friend who doesn't have anything to do, and so they're gonna bring them on.

That's, that is a... There's, there's no need for that anymore. [00:26:00] There are groups of people that we are not necessarily considering for board work because it's not the traditional model. It's not the forward-facing person in a corporation. The people who are doing IT, facilities management, HR, they need a place on your board because of what they can bring to help you implement your strategic plan.

Certainly, we need to have people who have, um, a modicum or, or have access to wealth, but it shouldn't-- they don't necessarily have to bring or have their own wealth. You and I know that fundraising kind of slogan of give, get, give or get. That's a way for people to broaden the representation. It's really important for those who are being served or have been served to have a place on your board.

Um, a dear organization that I've worked with for over a decade, um, whose founder is a very dear friend of mine, and I had the privilege to serve on that board, instituted an alumni opportunity so that those [00:27:00] who had been served through a two-year period of breaking addiction and stopping the loop of re-incarceration, uh, were invited to serve on the board.

That was invaluable to all of us, uh, and gave us a perspective that we really didn't have. You can read about impact, but this was somebody who had experienced the impact. So to, to, to go back to the initial question, we started off with this being kind of a, you know, a clubby affair of people who knew each other, um, whose family tree, um, whose business associations made it very easy to populate.

It's really why most women, um, 100, 150 years ago were given that charity position for, to give them something to do. But now, if we have changed the paradigm, we need to get expertise and experience on there, representation on there, experiential knowledge on there so that this organization that has decided, [00:28:00] decided to be impactful, creating a dependency for those who benefit.

It's no longer a hobby or a charity. It's a, it's an enterprise that needs to build itself, be strong, and see if it can grow.

Anne Green: I think that is so powerful, and I love You know, the historical lens is important. Sometimes we get a little ahistorical in our society, or we don't wanna kinda look at the past and understand why systems developed.

And that, that sort of leads to my next question. You had, you had talked about sort of the learning journey, um, and kind of three primary areas. And one of them, the first one really got my attention because this is something I think about a lot, which is how to use systems and structures to drive success merely than compliance.

That is, merely th- than relying on mechanisms of compliance. And again, sometimes I feel like There's systems and structures all around us, but sometimes we're on autopilot and we don't even see them. [00:29:00] Like, how do we step back and see the systems? And then how do we decide which ones are really helpful and which ones need to be rebuilt or retooled, and then how do we put them to work?

So that's what comes to mind for me. But what did you mean when you said how to use systems and structures to drive success rather than merely compliance? How would you summarize what that means to you? I

Deb Enright: love that question. So for us, there's three levels of maturity which will indicate what systems and structures may be necessary or needed.

So let me do that first. So startups, right? So then you're building them. So for the, for the growth, you're strengthening them, you're looking at, you know, is the theory of change exactly working as you thought it would? Have there been some modifications? The legacy is, are these things in place and are they strong enough so that we could replicate either in partnership or perhaps as a satellite?

So those kind of levels are, are, are very important for us to start with. The systems and structures for a board, it's a way for the board members, and this is not always [00:30:00] comfortable for the CEO, executive director, or exec team, but it's a way for them to lean in with their business expertise or community leader expertise and say, "Are we doing it best?"

That is not putting operations into question. It's merely asking, are we doing it best? So the model we built 10 years ago, it's still working. We have impact. We, our revenue is generating. We have a full portfolio. Everybody's happy. Is it best? And those are questions that a board needs to ask, not to ruffle feathers, but merely to see, are we as efficient as possible?

So the structures and the systems, and certainly they are, um, you can find them across the nonprofit sector, but you can also learn some from the for-profit sector, and that's part of what this book is saying, is it's not off boundaries. Uh, that's why you have these board members. They can lean in and look at it.

Some of them have been through [00:31:00] mergers. Some of them have had failed businesses, and so they have a different lens perhaps than those who are running the nonprofit, and that's why working together collaboratively and having the board in an oversight role allows for these questions to be asked in a productive way, not a prosecutorial way.

Anne Green: Yeah. And I love what you're saying about, you said earlier about how do you get down into deeper skill sets, HR, IT, et cetera, which we know is important, but in a changing world today, some of those, it's more and more complex. And I, I contemplate how any board, w- whatever context you're in, the amount you have to take in and hold is crazy today.

No b- one board member can understand it all. But one thing, you know, I've been in, as you know, in and around board service for many years. Um, I've worked and, and staffed corporate boards for clients, you know, been there in the room with them. Especially ones that kind of are hybrid, coming out of a corporate setting into a 501[c][3] and [00:32:00] they're grant-making, so sitting in those discussions, as well as my own service commitments.

I've been a CEO twice and I've been a board chair twice, so this is very close to my heart. And one thing that really jumped out at me in the book, and I wanna wrestle with this a bit 'cause I think it applies to so many things in life, is the idea that in board service particularly, we can get so lost in the focus on governance and all of the structure of that that we obscure or lose sight of the actual work that we can and must be doing.

Why did you bring that into the book, and what have you seen around that issue?

Deb Enright: Well, I think that while we've just talked about building structures and systems, right? They provide comfort. A board needs to be an open, viable, organic entity that can have difficult conversations, that can think beyond what is, that can consider the what-ifs about things, and we don't necessarily take [00:33:00] time to do that.

I think that the structures of making sure that, you know, a week or 10 days ahead, the board packet gets to people on time so they can look at it, um, or digitizing it all so that we're not, you know, putting any trees in peril, the rigor of making sure you are prepared, the agenda and making sure the agenda's in place, making sure whatever staff's gonna be there or if there's gonna be a beneficiary to...

So the show of the board meeting can supersede the work of the board. I certainly have been a, a part of putting those shows together, and you don't really think about it, right? But I'm not sure in any agenda I've seen over the last decade there's been a what do you think moment. We might say new business, but new business means new business.

But this moment of thinking, this moment of reflection, we don't necessarily take time to do that unless we're in [00:34:00] a two-day, day-and-a-half, two-hour morning-only strategic planning, which really is about Post-It notes, which is not a technique I particularly prefer, but Post-It notes, putting that all together, putting it up in a document and then throwing it up, and then, then it's done and it collects dust.

So those kind of conversations, this is a great question, Anne, because it's really important for board members to bring what they can, we've talked very much about expertise and experience, but they need to bring their heart too. Um, and they need to remember the kind of organization that they are serving.

So for instance, if it's about theater- Think about it. There's a board that I actually am serving on now, and I'm thrilled to be. Our board chair starts out with, "Well, what have you seen? In addition to the stuff we really hope you go to, 'cause it's what we're putting on, well, what else have you seen? Are you stretching yourself as an audience member?"

Th- that's important, and I think what I [00:35:00] really appreciate h- about the chair is it's not just going to theater, it's about concerts. It's even about movies. Um, it's about anything that has to do with kind of having an audience, and understanding and, and causing us to grow more so that we can better support what is a fantastic artistic director who also serves, at this point in the life of the organization, as the managing director.

We need to do that, and I think that's important too. Remember who you're serving, why you're serving, and then learn about how that, um, service is, uh, moving out into the world.

Anne Green: Oh, I love that anecdote. I couldn't love it more. There's so many things come to mind, sort of the openness and curiosity, whether we label something as high culture or low culture, which I've never been interested in.

Nope. It's culture, it's curiosity, it's creating these moments of serendipity and just human connection among a board group or any group. Could be your leadership team, could [00:36:00] be your team. Pick any human community, but just getting people to bring a different kind of energy and curiosity to the room, and bring their own experience and see what does that alchemize, what does that catalyze, like, all those kinds of exciting words of generation and creation.

Um, to me, the, the governance thing is it's like I see both and all around me, like, multiple things being true at once, right? So good governance absolutely creates systems of excellence. We have to remove friction, and when we remove friction and build trust through legible, transparent, well-managed systems of excellence, I always say then we fly.

Then we fly. But we know an over-focus on governance and the theater of the board, or feeling like the most important thing is how we're structuring this, or, you know, bylaws are really important, but you can, you can lose years of your life to them, we know, right? You gotta have 'em, but it's a lot. So governance can bog us down, and then sometimes it goes so far as to erode trust when we [00:37:00] hold too tightly to systems of command or hierarchy.

So if you're look- talking to any of your for audience, a board chair, or members, or CEOs, or their executive teams, how do you think they work together to strike the right balance? What's the check on each other? What are the conversations they need to be having to find that balance?

Deb Enright: That's interesting. So I think there's a couple things that might work to erode that balance or conflict with even building it, and some of it is institutional knowledge.

"Well, we've always done it this way," or, "We tried that and it didn't work." When did you try it? "Well, 10 years ago." Well, okay, things are different, right? So I think some of it is the institutional knowledge. It- some of it is not using what is a neutral tool in your bylaws to move people gently with decorum and thankfulness off of the board.

So there is a, um, wonderful organization that I've worked with, [00:38:00] uh, that is about 30 years old, uh, had to do with affordable housing, um, in a historically African American, um, location. And th- some of the board members had been on from the beginning, and so the new executive director had me come in. "Okay, let's just, let's chat about reviving it."

The, the executive director was feeling a little bit frustrated, uh, that the board didn't seem to be quite as energetic or g- uh, actually know what they were supposed to do. Great. So bring in a neutral person to have that conversation. Loved, loved the strategy. Got in there and I said, "Hey, did you guys know that your term is three years?

That's what it says in the bylaws." And some of them just looked at me and said, "But I've been on for 30." No harm, no foul, so let's talk about it. Are you comfortable? Do you wanna term off now or at the end of the year, or how do you wanna make that go? And there was a, they were awash with relief because they felt they were letting this new executive d- director down.

They were tired. They had done [00:39:00] everything they could. They were historically linked to the organization, but this neutral tool, which is the bylaws, allowed them to say, "Thank you. I've had enough," or, "If I could have another year, that'd be great." That helps with recruitment, that helps with the regeneration, right?

So I would say term limits would be another thing. The final thing is to just understand that no board has to be right, and that it can get messy, and it can look, uh, it can be uncomfortable for people. But if staff is there and a board member screws up or says the wrong thing or is misguided or even compliments something that really didn't happen 'cause they didn't prepare, okay, we're all human, right?

So how do we reset? How do we make it, to your point of building trust, so that people can be who they are? Some people on a board will never have served. They will be a first-generation board member. They need to be cared for. Not propped up, not carried, but cared for. And this is why, [00:40:00] Anne, one of the things that we delve into in the book is this notion of orientation and onboarding

Anne Green: I think the orientation onboarding is so important.

I'm working through that right now for a board that you and I both know well, that I am very close to my heart, that we both served on, and trying to revitalize it and ask ourselves what has been done in the past and is, is that needed, and what's the kind of engagement and conversation, what tone do we wanna set with these people as they're coming in?

Um, how do we honor what they're hoping to bring? How do we learn something while also making the organization legible to people? And that's been a big word of mine lately. I mean, if you talk to my colleagues, making something legible, it's a little different than transparent. It's making it readable. I think a lot of times with these kinds of organizations, like a board or even someone coming in, you're always having people come in and out, and so knowledge is, like, super asynchronous.

Some people have tons of it, others are like, "What the heck is going on?" Um, another [00:41:00] thing I've been talking a lot about, Natalie Nixon, who's another, um, person from, uh, from our alma mater, she talks about the Navy SEALs saying of, "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast," which I interpret as go slow to go fast.

Like, when do we need to slow down, explain, bring people into the loop so that they can be fully knowledgeable, and when is it that we need to, enough, let's move on, let's, let's move forward? And I love, I love, though, what you said, Deb, about, and I think it's a wonderful example of using the bylaws, the structure there, if they're well-designed, if we've had good discussions about them, if we've brought them up to date with what an organization is today, the world today, that you can look and say, "There's a clause here about term limits.

Let's facilitate a human conversation about it." I, I think that's so strong. Um- I wanna, I wanna, uh, get into a little bit of a speed round. You have these sections in each chapter titled Perfect Your Practice, with [00:42:00] immediate actions to take. So it'd be fun, I think, to think about all of your different roles, you know, that we talked about earlier, on a board, and to think about one or two concrete examples of what perfecting your practice might be.

And so if, if you're game, are you game for this little speed round,

Deb Enright: Deb? Yes, of course I am.

Anne Green: Okay, great. So let's start with the board chair. Um, and I am, again, recently a new board chair, so I'm getting going, you know, in my new role. If they remember nothing else from this conversation, what's one or two takeaways for a board chair today?

Deb Enright: Uh, to understand that it is not always about your performance and being perfect. It's about understanding these people have your back, and that may also mean that there are going to be some difficult conversations. What you should know is where you're going and how this board is going to help you and your staff and the organization move forward.

You need to know about every board member. You need to be in a relationship with every board member so that those priceless [00:43:00] seats become your best and most efficient strategic asset.

Anne Green: I love it. All right, now let's turn to an organization's CEO or executive team that's interacting with the board. What are, what are your top takeaways for them?

Deb Enright: I'm gonna say it again. It's not, it's not about performance. It's about really getting over that, right? Don't, don't worry about if you're doing it right, worry about if you're doing it well. Know that these folks, if they understand their role, all they wanna do is make it better. All they wanna do is make sure that you're getting supported.

The one thing you can do as a staff member particularly, but also as the leader, is remind the chair that there is a gate so that the, the work is for oversight, not for micromanaging at all. And the chair and the CEO/ED are that gate, so that as a staff, if a board member calls or emails and you feel it's not [00:44:00] comfortable, then you go ahead-- or you don't know what to do, like, "Am I supposed to give them this information?

It feels like it might be too confidential," that the, that, just go to your leader and go to the board chair and just say, "Just help me know what to do." Board members never intend to undermine, usually. Uh, they really are there just to support.

Anne Green: Yeah, and, a- and you know, s- no, it's, uh, uh, it's, hey, there's politics out there, and we've all seen it.

So sometime... I tend to be a little naive. You know, you, you read stuff about people being a little bit Machiavellian in these very small settings where it's like what are the, what are the stakes here?

Deb Enright: Yeah, come

Anne Green: on. And, uh, I'm often surprised that, oh, someone is plotting. Well, that's interesting. But I think that's not as often.

To me, the thing that happens more often is in our human psychology, it's so easy to fall into us versus them thinking and to binary thinking, and it's so easy to fall into a defensive crouch to say, "Well, I'm the CEO, and the board [00:45:00] is, um, coming at me in a way where I'm, I'm going... My first thought, even if it's subconscious, and, like, more autonomic, not even rational, like, is a defensive, like, what do they want, and vice versa, you know?

So to me, one of the big things about emotional intelligence and really the health of any human community and organization, I think about this a lot in my current role, is how do we either dismount the high horse, great view, but get off the high horse, or how do we put down our swords, don't even realize we're holding them, hold less tightly, I've got all these metaphors, and recognize that these kinds of dynamic tensions are built into these relationships?

And if we're not aware that we can immediately fall into that trap, you know, we're, we're gonna have a lot of issues. Does that resonate with you, Deb?

Deb Enright: Yes. I think very, very well said. One thing I will also lift up is this notion of cliques, and that sounds like it should be middle school, right? Which is silly.

Um, and I will go ahead to say that cliques [00:46:00] can ha- can hold amounts of trauma for people that we don't even know. They can be the most destructive, uh, with a smile on, uh, kind of entity that can invade, uh, infiltrate, and divide a board. Some of that can... And, and the, the membership of the cliques can be as capricious As just trying to list them, right?

It w- doesn't make any sense. I will say that going back to, like, if we're speaking to everybody, all four of the audiences that I've written the book for, this is your responsibility. Don't foster it, don't gain membership, and try to destroy any ones that you see. How that destruction happens, 'cause that's a pretty hard word to use, but how that destruction happens will be up to the culture of your board.

That's why I spend time talking about not just the

management of the board, but the care of the board. The one thing we don't necessarily think about is for [00:47:00] board membership, those board members are gonna get something out of it, too. Some of them will develop professionally. Some of them will expand their network personally. Some of them are going to be put in situations they never thought they would be, meeting people they never thought they would, or finding themselves and as the chair of a committee that has some pretty august people sitting on that committee, and they're the chair.

Those experiences don't happen anywhere else for any individual to experience. It's, it's extraordinary So eclipsing what can be just a natural, unfortunately, human development, that being a clique, just why? I mean, there's no need of that. You're not gonna win because you've got seven people versus five on a particular, um, motion, right?

It's remember who you're serving, and you're not serving just the organization. You really are serving [00:48:00] the people, the puppies, the plantings. Um, that's the reason you're even there.

Anne Green: Yeah, that's so good. You know, this, I, I think of that clique formation, and it, you know, it's natural. I love friendship groups, I love

And everything can flip one way or another, but I think of it as kind of poison in the well. And, um, it creates a situation where we feel like suddenly we're playing politics within an organization that really, like I said, the stakes may be high for the people we're serving, but the stakes internally within that organization, it's very low to be acting like we're plotting and having this, you know, huge, you know, battle with each other.

So that's some good advice for the whole board. Is there anything else for current board directors, and also those who hope to serve, that you'd love to take away from this conversation and the book as a whole?

Deb Enright: That it is an opportunity of a lifetime to serve on a board, whether it's nonprofit or for-profit, that you will grow, that you will find opportunities to better [00:49:00] yourself, as well as hopefully support and make others better in the work that they do, that this is a chance for you to extend yourself with absolutely no performance evaluation.

Uh, it's a way for you to, if you're in finance and they always put you on a finance committee as a board member, it's a way for you to say, "Hold on. When I was in college or high school or in my community, I'm known for the events I put on. I wanna serve on the events committee." It's a way for you to just enjoy and learn and grow and meet people, all the while making sure that the world is getting better.

Anne Green: I love that. I think that's a great place to end. Deb, it's been such a pleasure. Your book is Bored to Death: Transform Your Nonprofit Board into a Strategic Catalyst for Change. I thank those who've listened to the end. Thank you. We've learned a lot, and we've learned to question things like even the word nonprofit.

Why are, you know? So I, I think it's wonderful. The book is coming out mid-September. By the time [00:50:00] this releases, it'll be very close to being available, so check it out. And Deb, thank you so much. It's been wonderful being your friend and colleague all these years. I appreciate you being a part of Building Brand Gravity.

Deb Enright: And you are a leader whose future only shines. Thank you for letting me be on this show with you.

Anne Green: Great, and thanks to our listeners. Stay in touch, and if you've missed recent episodes, check 'em out. Thanks for listening to Building Brand Gravity.

Steve Halsey: [00:00:00] In every industry, eventually you reach a moment where technology moves faster than trust.

Adam Gittins: AI, I believe, is going to be one of the great equalizers in the business world of our time.

Greg Ehm: It challenges a common marketing assumption that we have to trust the technology before we're gonna adopt it. It's kind of the complete reverse with AI right now.

Steve Halsey: Welcome to Building Brand Gravity. I'm Steve Halsey.

Anne Green: And I'm Ann Green. I'm glad to be back on the pod with you, Steve.

Steve Halsey: Same here, Ann. Same here. So one of the things we've talked about throughout this series is that in every industry, eventually you reach a moment where technology moves faster than trust, and that's, that's a topic we're hearing more and more.

And when that happens, organizations have to figure out how are they gonna bridge that gap [00:01:00] if they want their innovations to succeed. So today we're looking at that challenge through the lens of agriculture. And as many of our listeners may know, we have two agencies under our group, Morgan Meyers and GNS Business Communications.

And across both firms, our teams have spent literal decades helping companies across the agriculture and food value chain really introduce new technologies, everything from crop protection and seed innovations to precision agriculture, sustainability initiatives, uh, digital farming, and even now different ways to integrate artificial intelligence into their operations.

And like many of the complex sectors we focus on, in agriculture, adoption is not driven by marketing hype. It's earned through trust, proof, and real-world results on what I would call farms like mine

Anne Green: Mm-hmm. And I, I loved how you [00:02:00] framed that earlier, Steve, when technology moves faster than trust. I agree that's an incredibly important point for communicators and marketers, and really all leaders, uh, to reflect on right now, so all of our listeners.

And I think it crystallizes one of our key challenges and frankly, opportunities in this moment. But I also really agree with your observations about the agriculture sector. You know, we closely follow a number of different sectors right now, and I think agriculture is one of the most fascinating to study when it comes to AI because on the one hand, people often think of AI as something brand new, but agriculture, as, you know, some of our listeners who know this sector understand, has been using AI-embedded or driven technologies for a lot of years.

And you mentioned precision agriculture, but there's also robotics and drones and sensing technologies and also predictive analytics. Um, yet the underlying technology is evolving fast, and I think the bigger change is that [00:03:00] generative AI has suddenly become so accessible to almost everyone with a smartphone or laptop.

So that, that's a bit of the change now from what we've seen, and that's causing an explosion of new opportunities and tools and insights, but it's also causing a whole lot of noise to sort through, and it can be hard to know what to follow and what to trust.

Steve Halsey: Exactly. And you know, that's one of the reasons why Morgan Meyers recently conducted some proprietary research, and it was with farmers, ranchers, and ag retailers to better understand how they're actually using AI and maybe, probably most importantly, whether they trust it.

You know, and some of those findings were, were really, really interesting. You know, nearly half of farmers told us that they are already using general AI tools with some regularity to support their operations. But most really view it as still experimenting rather than really relying on it every day to make kind of [00:04:00] key decisions around the farm

Anne Green: Yeah, I, I noticed that too.

I mean, God, the research has so many data points in it that are pretty fascinating. But what stood out to me wasn't hesitation toward technology. You know, folks who are not connected to ag sometimes miss how incredibly advanced and tech-savvy this sector is. I think what stood out more to me, and I'm sure to you, was the distinction between, I guess, we'd say usefulness and trust, right?

So the survey shows farmers, ag retailers, they, they said AI is valuable. 84%, that's high, said it's delivering at least some value to their operation, but only a quarter, so that 25% or less, fully or somewhat trust AI-generated recommendations when it comes to operational decisions, which are really critical 'cause they only get, you know, a couple shots a year of those.

And that's a pretty remarkable gap, and it's one, frankly, we're seeing in many other sectors and more widely across society as a whole.

Steve Halsey: [00:05:00] Yeah, I mean, that really is such a remarkable gap, and when you dig deeper, you know, the reasons are incredibly practical. You know, farmers want AI just like the rest of us, help me save time, organize information, become better at my decision-making.

But they also want proof, and they want the transparency, and they want to understand where the recommendations come from and the rationale and experience behind them. And above all, they really wanna make sure that that human expertise remains part of the equation. You know, to me, that's a lesson, Anne, that, that expands beyond agriculture.

Anne Green: Absolutely, and you know, and whether we're talking about healthcare, which is a sector I'm working in quite extensively recently, or manufacturing, financial services, or agriculture, the challenge isn't simply introducing AI. I think we understand that now. It's creating enough confidence that people are willing to incorporate it into real-world decisions.

So at its heart, [00:06:00] this is a trust conversation, and that's exactly one of the topics we love to explore here on Building Brand Gravity.

Steve Halsey: So today we're gonna be joined by two people who see this from pretty complementary perspectives. So Greg Emm is one of our leaders in agricultural communications at Morgan Meyers, and he really helped shape this research.

And Adam Gittins brings the perspective of both a technology leader in this space and a farmer making these decisions every single day. So let's dive into what AI really looks like on today's farm, what every business can learn from how trust gets built.

Anne Green: Let's get into the conversation with Greg and Adam.

Steve Halsey: So today we're gonna talk about something that may be interesting for a lot of our listeners, and that's that agriculture may be showing every industry what successful AI adoption should look like. It's not just about replacing [00:07:00] people, and it shouldn't be about replacing people. It's people learning to trust AI through experimentation, proof, and human expertise.

So joining us today are two people looking at this challenge from very different but very complimentary lenses. We have Adam Gittins, who's president of HTS Ag, and our very own SVP of Agriculture at Morgan Meyers, Greg Aame. Adam, let's start with you first. For those who aren't that familiar with HTS Ag or I, I'd posit even precision ag, can you give us a little bit about what you do and how AI is, uh, coming into the work that you're doing from both a technical and a farms side?

Adam Gittins: Absolutely, Steve. HTS Ag provides high-tech solutions for agriculture. We've been in the, in the industry in precision agriculture now for a little over 30 years, back before precision agriculture was even an industry. But precision agriculture by definition is just [00:08:00] applying the right product at the right place at the right time and in the right amount.

And so if you think through utilizing technology to accomplish all of that, we're able to, to get a lower rate of fertilizer, a better outcome, we can take care of this land that we're farming, we can reduce the inputs, we can save some money. It's, it's really a win-win-win when we use technology in agriculture, and AI is just enhancing that

Steve Halsey: Oh, that's great.

Yeah, and, and Greg, like from, from your standpoint, where you, where you're sitting, you've spent decades helping agriculture brands earn trust. What made you and the team at Morgan Meyers decide that now is the right time to try and study AI and it, and its adoption?

Greg Ehm: Well, Steve, we saw a lot of discussion regarding AI, but not enough ground-level understanding of what was actually happening on farms and with [00:09:00] retailers.

As Adam mentioned, agriculture has been using AI-adjacent tools for years through precision ag, livestock monitoring, robotic milking systems. But what has changed is the visil- visibility and that accessibility to AI. It's, as we all know, it's much more direct, it's easier to access, and it is literally in our pockets every day.

So we wanted to separate the hype from the reality and understand how farmers, ranchers, and retailers are using AI today, what value they see in AI, and what concerns still need to be addressed about the technology in their mind.

Steve Halsey: Well, and, and that's what I think is gonna be interesting to the point that you both have made, is that for those that are not i- not as deep in agriculture, you may not realize how deeply embedded technology, um, already is.

And before we really dive into the findings, which I think is just gonna be a [00:10:00] fascinating discussion, Greg, maybe you can give our viewers and listeners just a quick overview of how the study was conducted so that they have a, have a quick frame of reference.

Greg Ehm: Yeah, absolutely. We actually partnered with a ref- research firm called Ag Access to conduct a proprietary quantitative research with US farmers, ranchers, and retailers.

So we surveyed 166 farmers and ranchers representing row crop, dairy, uh, cattle, and swine operations, along with 35 ag retailers to better understand how they're using AI, where they see value, what barriers they see existing with the tool, and perhaps most importantly, what it's going to take to build trust in AI moving forward.

But we also looked at it, you know, what are the differences between operation size, commodities, age to better understand where adoption is accelerating and maybe where that [00:11:00] skepticism still remains.

Steve Halsey: Well, there's, there's lots of good stuff to get, get in here, a- and I'm gonna, I'm gonna pull out my handy dandy little cheat sheet here, Greg.

But these, these were, uh, these were eight of the key findings, uh, that, that came out of the Morgan Meyers research. The first was that AI adoption is already meaningful with nearly half of farmers and ranchers using general AI to support their operation with some regularity. The second big finding was that AI usage though is still largely experimental.

Frequent use among farmers and ranchers was actually on par with what we're seeing in the broader US workplace. The third key finding was that general purpose AI outpaces ag platform AI, basically suggesting, um, that people are using it to do research and different things, but I'm gonna be really interested in Adam's take when it, when it's how does this really get into the embedded AI in [00:12:00] some of these programs.

Your fourth finding was that A ad- AI adoption is uneven by segments. Dairy producers and younger farmers, those under 35, and large operations were the highest users. Um, so that's gonna be a good area to get into. Your fifth finding was that farmer and rancher use of AI can largely be classified as practical and business-oriented, so I thought that was kind of interesting.

AI is viewed as promising but improvent, so there's perceived value in it, but there's a lot of distrust and skepticism. Your seventh finding was that retailers are much more cautious than farmers, lagging in adoption, value, and trust. And your final finding was that proof, transparency, and human validation are really needed to build trust.

And Greg, I'm, I'm gonna, gonna hit, hit you up in a little bit to get a little bit deeper in that. But, but Adam, out of those key findings, was there one that surprised you the [00:13:00] most?

Adam Gittins: Well, I think it falls well in line with what we are seeing. You know, AI has become a force multiplier, and it's well-suited to agriculture because we have a shortage of labor in agriculture.

And so utilizing AI to help make up and, and stretch or spread that gap- It, it really starts to make sense, I think. The, the idea that the embedded platforms are not as, as readily adopted as just the general AI, I don't know that I was surprised by that, but it, it makes sense when you say it because I think people are out using the tools like, you know, ChatGPT and Claude and some of the others that are out there, and they're doing creative things with them that a dedicated focused tool may not be able to do.

You know, we're thinking outside the box, and so we're using the tools in ways that the integrated technology or the integrated AI in some of these platforms may not be capable of.

Steve Halsey: So Greg, what about, what about your perspective? You've been doing agri-marketing for just a few years now. What, what really stood out for you as, as being, [00:14:00] uh, uh, distinct or, or really of importance for communicators and marketers?

Greg Ehm: The biggest surprise to us is that usage and trust are not moving at the same pace.

Anne Green: Hmm. Interesting.

Greg Ehm: I mean, as you said, you know, almost a l- nearly half of farmers and ranchers are using and experimenting with AI tools with some regularity, and 84% of those using AI tools, uh, believe it delivers some level of value.

But- N- only a quarter, or only a quarter of those farmers surveyed, around 26%, really trust AI-generated recommendations for real operational decisions. So this tells us that adoption and skepticism are happening at the same time. Farmers are willing to experiment, but they're not ready to relay... They're not ready to rely on AI until it proves [00:15:00] itself in real-world ag conditions.

And I would say that's not resistance, that's just farmers being practical.

Steve Halsey: Mm-hmm. Yeah, it's, it's a, it's a fascinating, um, challenge when you put it that way, when you're having rapid adoption but low trust. That creates a lot of risk for brands, doesn't it?

Greg Ehm: It, it does. I think it's a case, too, is that, you know, but at the same time, too, farmers don't really n- or necessarily need to fully trust AI to start experimenting with it, and that's what we're seeing right now.

Um, you know, they're using it in practical, low-risk manners and ways, um, but they're also comparing against their other data that they collect on their farm, their experience and their judgment. So, you know, when we d- did the survey, we asked, you know, "How are you using it?" Well, they're using it for product research and comparisons, helping them write [00:16:00] communications and email.

Uh, but they're also using it maybe to pressure test some of their ideas, maybe some of their plans, um, and maybe some of their decisions. And, but so the model maybe looks a little bit more like it's experimentation first, then we validate the results, we build confidence, and then trust gradually grows.

And, you know, I think that matters because it challenges a common marketing assumption that we have to trust the technology before we're gonna adopt it. It's kind of the complete reverse with AI right now. And if AI keeps pr- proving useful, that confidence is going to continue to grow, and that's how trust will start to form long term.

Steve Halsey: So Adam, what about, what about from your perspective? So if you have experimentation, you have trial, uh, maybe you have some second-guessing of, of the [00:17:00] recommendations. I mean, how is this, um, kind of adoption, uh, that Greg is talking about, rapid adoption, low trust, how does that impact how you guys work with customers or, or how you're delivering solutions?

Adam Gittins: Well, and I think that can be explained. If anyone that has used AI is aware that it can confidently lie to you. You know, that's something that's of significant importance. I think the idea here is trust but verify. Anything that, that AI puts in front of me, I wanna make sure I've got sources to back it up.

But that, that fits well with what we're seeing for, for the use case, where writing that email, it may be able to generate the first draft. We go back through and, and proofread and edit and finalize that, or building presentations or even, uh, crunching data. If I have an AI model do math for me, I ask it to show me its work.

I treat it like a school student would, and the teacher asking for the work to be [00:18:00] shown. Because it, it can get ahead of itself and not give you a correct answer, and that can really start to snowball the, the project in a bad way.

Steve Halsey: Yeah. And, and one of, one of the things that, that you had, you had mentioned, uh, when, when we had a quick discussion before we started, you were just talking about some of the ways you're using it, really practical win, meeting summaries, but even things like coding and, and ROI calculator.

So maybe you can talk a little bit from both, like the precision ag and ag tech side of things. What, what is this unleashing for you, and, and what lessons can those maybe who aren't in ag take from how you guys are really leading that adoption?

Adam Gittins: AI, I believe, is going to be one of the great equalizers in the business world of our time, and I say that because I have the ability as a small company to put out products or put out information to my customers that previous were unaffordable to me.

I can quickly sit down and I can use an AI tool to generate an ROI calculator. [00:19:00] You know, precision agriculture is heavily focused on the return on investment. If we can save 10 or 15% of the seed that they're going to plant by not over planting it, and we can start to look at all of these different angles and different approaches.

Well, we've for years used an Excel spreadsheet to show them the math and put their numbers in, give them back some information about how it impacts their operation. Well, now we have that in a web portal. It's generated in HTML. It's much cleaner. It's, it's much sleeker. It looks like a product that a much larger company would've put together with a web designer that probably got a lot bigger price tag than what the AI tool cost me, and that's the type of thing that really levels the playing field.

Instead of being a 100-person company, you know, a 10 or 15-person company now has the ability, a one-person company has the ability to use that AI tool and generate some of those more professional looking pieces to be out in front of [00:20:00] customers and engaging with them So that, that to me is just such a valuable tool.

When we've got that data in front of our customers in a meaningful way, we're no longer selling them a product, we're educating them on how they can make a change in their operation, and we're using technology to highlight technology.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, and I think, I think that's one of the things is, is ironically, w- whether you wanna use the term make you more human, but, but, but it allows you to really focus on, like you said, that service and that sale.

And you probably both heard the comment that, you know, it's not AI that's gonna put you out of a job. It's the person who knows how to use AI really well who's going to, uh, uh, put people out of their jobs. But I also just the point that you're talking about something that is such a deep expertise field like agriculture, you know, those that are willing to really adopt AI and use it, like you said, what you can do as a small company or an individual consultant versus what the large company can do is, is a [00:21:00] pretty significant shift.

I guess here's a question for both of you guys. Jump balls, whoever wants to take it first, and then the other can comment on there. What was one moment, uh, probably within the past six months or so, when you stopped and thought, "Wow, this AI thing is going to fundamentally change the way we work"?

Adam Gittins: Being a, a technical company, as you can imagine, we're working with technology that requires a lot of tech support.

And so as we roll this technology out to our customers, there's an awful lot of questions, there's an awful lot of troubleshooting, and it's a lot to know and to understand. Anybody that's worked on a computer can relate. We're just putting computers in tractors, so same concept as it relates to agriculture For years, it's been such a challenge to get my staff trained up and have them capable of handling that, that tech support for our customer base.

When someone calls in with a question, even some of the simpler questions, it's an awful lot to remember. So we've [00:22:00] used AI to build a tool. We fed it the information we want. We told it, "These are the... Th- this is the folder with the documents that you can go search, and you can look at this one website that's a, a portal for one of our manufacturers.

Outside of that, you're not allowed to look any other, any other place for information, and if you don't know the answer, make sure you state that if it, if it is not completely clear." That tool has generated a very, very clean way for my internal staff to be able to type in questions and offer that entry-level tech support to our customers accurately, repeatably, and with, with a high level of accuracy that previously I, I don't know how we could have built that short of a, a big investment in time to be able to get everybody up to speed on all those products.

Steve Halsey: That is a really, uh, amazing and practical example. Greg, how, how about you? What, what is, what, what in the past few months has just blown your mind a little bit here?

Greg Ehm: I think [00:23:00] one is, you know, in the, in the last, um, couple months is, is how some, how advanced some of these tools have become in a sense that, as Adam was talking about, how you can use it as a smaller organization or smaller firm to create a very professionally looking tool, um, you know, like he put together, uh, for, for ROI.

And I think that's where these tools have come, and that's what's really clicked with me the last two months, is just how advanced these tools have become and- You know, with a little bit of coaching and being the adult in the room, what you can create with these tools, um, it's just, it's incredible.

Whether it's, it's doing an ROI calculator, but also making that look professional that companies are able to do that on their own, and you didn't have that capability maybe six months ago.

Steve Halsey: Yep. Great. Yeah, Greg, you ment- you mentioned, uh, being the adult in the room. It reminded me of, uh, something Adam said the other day, where he said, [00:24:00] "Hey, I view AI as..."

How did you describe it? "A highly capable college intern." Ad- Adam, can you, you give a little more context to that? That's, that's just a really memorable anecdote in my mind.

Adam Gittins: Yeah, I think that's such a great way to think about AI. It's a tool that can really... I can hand off a project to the AI tool and give it some direction and s- you know, go start this for me.

Whether it's, uh, the most recent one just here within the past week, I was cross-referencing a couple of different Excel spreadsheets, and I wanna know how much overlap there is between the two of, uh, customer lists. So I have this list, and I have this list. How much overlap is there between the two of people that have done both things?

And I can dump, uh, dump both of those spreadsheets into the, the AI tool and have it compare those. It found a, you know, 33% overlap. And then just all of that type of information can be crunched and ran without me having to sit and spend the time staring at the screen doing it. But it, it will [00:25:00] do really good at starting a project.

Uh, created a PowerPoint presentation that I gave to a group of teachers here just a few days ago, and that presentation I, I prompted AI and told it the premise of what I wanted to teach to, or tell to the teachers, gave it bullet points, gave it some information, let it create and format the presentation, and it, it does a great job of getting us, you know, 70 or 80% of the way there.

It can do a good job of starting a project in the first five minutes and get over that writer's block even to start a presentation or an article, or just to get that information started and out there, and then I go back through, proofread, edit, adjust, change, and, and get to a final product. But we have an internal AI policy in our company, and I, I've told everyone on our team, "You are the adult in the relationship."

That to me is the most important thing that I tell them because we don't want, we don't want that college intern sending information out to our customers. We don't want it [00:26:00] to be the final set of eyes across anything that's produced or, or used. We want it to maybe start the project, and then for the human set of eyes to finish, confirm, and verify that project

Steve Halsey: Yeah, and I, and I think, I think that's very, very important.

I mean, when you read the news headlines, you know what sells is clicks, so it's this versus that. The Terminator robots, all our jobs are going away. But it really feels like this intentional framing of human versus machine isn't accurate, at least not in how you guys are talking about the way it's being used in ag, and neither of you seems to see it that way.

So Greg, is that what the research pointed out? Is that what it found?

Greg Ehm: The research does not point to human versus AI. It points to human plus AI. And when you look at how farmers make decisions, they typically use data, experience, and intuition, and it's kind of a combination of those [00:27:00] three. One farmer may rely more on data than the other two.

One may rely more on experience, and another may rely more on their intuition before making decisions, but they're gonna use all three of those. AI can just help strengthen that. It can help speed up the analysis, um, but it still has to be filtered through human judgment. But it also can help us, um, think through, you know, what, what does that data tell us, and compare that to my experience and my intuition.

And I think what came out in the survey is farmers do not want and do not anticipate AI to replace their human judgment and expertise and intuition. They just want it to help them make better and faster decisions. You know, and so I don't believe it's the, the future's not human versus AI. It's really human plus AI.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, I really, I really like that framing, Greg, that idea of data, experience, and [00:28:00] intuition, and you could see AI feeds into all of those different things depending upon what you wanna do. Adam has given great examples of data and ROI. You know, you could even catalog your experience. Heck, you could even just record audio of that experience, which kinda creates that database of the farm.

And for that intuition, you could even use it to, uh, use it to game plan a little bit. So, so Adam, is this farmer with machine, uh, consultant with machine, is, is that really much more of what you guys are living every day versus, uh, you know, Star Wars and the robots, uh, doing the fields themselves?

Adam Gittins: Sure. And so some practical agriculture applications, AI is being heavily used already and, and farmers may not even understand that they're using AI sometimes.

But we can fly a drone over a field and we can get high resolution imagery of that whole field very quickly, and nearly on demand, right? It's, it's very easy to do. We now have [00:29:00] software that can analyze that imagery, and it can start to identify weed pressure, insect pressure, diseases. We can even start to ID different types of weeds in the field and be able to start making some smart recommendations about that.

But again, that's the start, that's that first 80%. We want a human to verify it, send that information back to the, the monitor that may go apply a treatment to that, and make sure that it's accurate and makes sense.

Steve Halsey: So Greg, I'm, I'm guessing that's, you know, based on some of the key findings that I was kind of reviewing at, at the beginning of the podcast.

This idea that AI should amplify human judgment, not replace it. Is that, is that really what you saw come through in the research and the findings?

Greg Ehm: Yeah. Steve, I think that's exactly the w- the correct way to frame it. You know, it's most... AI is just most useful when it helps farmers learn, research, analyze, plan, and even pressure test some of those decisions.

Um, the value's not in [00:30:00] replacing judgment, it's just helping that farmer make better and faster decisions. And ultimately, you know, the final decision is still gonna be grounded with farmers in that experience, intuition, and real world context.

Steve Halsey: Well, and one of the things I, I think is really interesting about seeing the adoption and experimentation in agriculture is, you know, I can remember 15, 20 years ago, um, working on messaging and, and product strategies with companies that were really to talk about traceability and sustainability and these type of things.

And it met a lot of, um, kind of resistance because, you know, growers were concerned about giving away the data to their farm. You know, they were really concerned about somebody else having all those details, yet trying to balance that with, oh my gosh, if we're able to get that data out there, guess what?

That traceability [00:31:00] may mean that if there's a brand that's gonna pay me a premium if I can prove how I reduce my carbon footprint, or maybe I used a little bit, um, uh, you know, less fertilizer, needs to create that, that traceability. So, so Adam, one of the things I'm really interested about from your perspective, you've been talk- talking to farmers about data privacy for jeez, probably 15, 20 years.

Has, has AI or more specifically generate, generative AI changed that conversation of how people are thinking about data privacy and what they're willing to share?

Adam Gittins: It certainly brought it to the front of the spotlight again, in my opinion. You know, a lot of the platforms out there were asking farmers to upload their data, and the thing that I, I often told our customers, "If it's free, you are the product."

You, you know, they're gaining value from your data in some fashion. And so just be aware of what's happening. If you get enough value out of the free tool they're offering you, [00:32:00] great, go for it, but understand what that trade-off is. And over and over again in our customer meetings for, like you said, the, the last 15 years probably, Steve, we've been showcasing data privacy and security.

We, we pull up and, and highlight certain sections on, on the slides in, in the presentation and show our customers what these privacy policies from some of these big companies say, and sometimes their jaws drop because it's not always friendly toward the farmer, that you're giving away maybe more than you know you are.

And in the case of AI, it's the same type of thing. If you're willing to load your information into a large language model, into a chatbot, you've gotta understand that it can potentially be out there for the rest of the world to view. And so you've gotta be a little bit protective of what type of data and what type of information that you're loading into these different engines to be able to get the information that you want.

Now, there are some ways around that, and that's one of the reasons we utilize Copilot primarily for more of the sensitive data because it allows, [00:33:00] allows a, a way to build that firewall, if you will, in between us and the rest of the world. We can keep that data private and protected. And so that's something that as we're talking about AI with our customers, as we're sharing with them what we're doing and as we're helping them get started with it, that's something that we're definitely bringing up and having as part of the conversation

Steve Halsey: So, so Greg, one of the things that the, that the research showed which I thought was interesting was that brand reputation wasn't actually what built trust here, right?

And particularly in parts of ag when you're dealing with equipment or with seeds, and that loyalty, that brand reputation is really deep here. But, but that isn't what you found in the research. Can you, can you expound like what, what builds trust in ag when it relates to the use of AI?

Greg Ehm: Well, the, the research showed that farmers still say brand reputation matters, but it's not the [00:34:00] strongest driver.

Uh, trust was, in their mind, is gonna be built through proof. 62% of the farmers said real-world farm results would increase their trust. So knowing that the, the insights the AI tools get back to them, they're sourced to, you know, to real-world ag research, whether that's university, it's, it's seed company, crop protection company, ag equipment dealer, um, manufacturer, um, data.

That's what they wanna know. They wanna know what those sources are, and so they can verify and make sure that that recommendation or those insights are rooted in real ag, uh, experiences. And I- they also told us they really wanna know how the tool works. They wanna know where those recommendations came from.

And like I said, Earl, they wanna verify it. Um, so I would say, you know, adoption is not earned through positioning alone. [00:35:00] It's more or less earned through the outcomes, transparency, and proof that that AI tool is going to deliver.

Steve Halsey: Well, and I think one of the things that, that's kind of interesting, and I'll be...

I, I'm really interested to get your guys' take on it. You know, one of the challenge with agri-marketing is at the end of the day it comes down to will it work on a farm like mine? Okay, I'm farming in Northeast Missouri. That doesn't mean everything that happens in Northeast Missouri is applicable to my farm.

Even what happens in a county may not be applicable to my farm, but maybe, you know, two farms down the dirt road, that is really what, what becomes relevant to a farm like mine. So what are y- what are your guys' respective thoughts on how localized the AI recommendation can actually get? Or, or Adam, maybe that's that data set or maybe that's where your team's expertise comes in with the knowledge of that farm, but how do you really make it relevant to a [00:36:00] farm like mine?

Adam Gittins: Well, and that's always the big question. Is more local data more valuable, or do we need to go find what those extra elements are that match up in a broader, larger data set? And so maybe you have similar soil characteristics on your farm as one that's in Northwest Iowa or Minnesota or wherever it may be.

But if we can figure out what those characteristics are, and this is, this is the thing that gets me so excited about AI and its potential usefulness in the future of agriculture, is we have been collecting piles and piles of data for so many years in this industry. We have information that most people would just roll their eyes at.

On every pass across the field, I can tell you what speed I was driving, what direction I was driving, everything that was happening in the field. And what are we gaining from that? I mean, we're using a lot of the data, but I think there is so much more information [00:37:00] there that we've not yet figured out how to unlock.

And so AI has the ability to look at these tremendously large data sets and to analyze and see patterns in those data, in that data that we may not, may not ever have seen any other way. So the localized data, Steve, maybe it works on your farm. Maybe those same things apply to my farm, and we can figure out what those things are that overlap and align between our farms.

Then we know how to benchmark against each other or how to utilize the data from one farm to another.

Steve Halsey: Wow, that's, that is, that is a really, uh, really fascinating way to look at it and think about in both the micro and, and macro standpoint. And again, as you're saying, the ability to make this analysis and connection that you otherwise never could because it would take the whole sum of human existence like to run all those data points.

So Greg, you know, you're spending a lot of time advising companies in this space on AI-enabled [00:38:00] products, how they get introduced. So I wanna ask you a question with a little bit of a twist. What's one mistake you tell them not to make?

Greg Ehm: Uh, the mistake would be selling AI instead of selling the outcome AI generates.

Um, farmers don't wanna use AI for the sake of AI. I mean, they want to know that what problem it can solve, what pain point it can, it can relieve, how the recommendation is created, and whether the recommendation's gonna work on farms like theirs. So the path I see with companies offering AI solutions or options, it's pretty straightforward.

Show the results, explain how- You got there, and that's gonna help you earn confidence over time. And companies that can demonstrate that, um, are more likely to earn that long-term adoption [00:39:00] and that trust with the farmer, and I think that's what's the key piece of it. Lead with the outcomes, and you don't lead with AI because I think that's going to s- that's gonna turn farmers off, number one, because of that trust factor right now.

They're more focused on, how can it help me solve my problems?

Steve Halsey: Mm-hmm. All right, so Greg, Greg got the one mistake you'd tell them not to make. Adam, what's one thing that you would tell them to do to see positive growth in their business?

Adam Gittins: I can't stress this one enough. Go try it, and go use it on a real problem.

Don't make up a problem that you're trying to solve and use AI to do. Find a task or a problem that you actually want to solve and let AI try it first. Even if you wasted 10 or 20 minutes on it and realize, "Hey, this just isn't going to work. I'm gonna do it myself," all you're out is a little bit of time.

Most of the platforms that are out there offer some type [00:40:00] of a, a free version or at least a free trial. And once you start to see what it can and can't do for you, then I think you can start to understand what platforms are best for the types of things you're doing. Maybe the paid platform has some extra features that would be worth unlocking.

I, I'm a big proponent of that. We, we pay subscription to a couple of different platforms that we use internally, and we understand where they have their strong suits and what they can do well. Uh, that to me is, is just something... Go try it. Go use as many different tools as you can find and see what outcomes are working best for you.

Steve Halsey: Definitely. Definitely great advice. Well, we're kinda cruising into the home stretch here, so I thought we'd have a little bit of fun since we were talking all about AI. I'm gonna take you guys back to the back of your parents' station wagon, Mad Libs style, on that late summer trip. So if you remember, that was kind of the fill-in-the-blank style.

So I'm gonna [00:41:00] start a sentence, and then you get to complete it. Um, and Greg, you know, since you're part of our team, you get the luck of going first. So Greg, how would you complete the following sentence? You ready? Farmers will trust AI when

Greg Ehm: It still leaves them in control. And I think the, the process, the thinking behind that is, is one mistake in farming can have huge consequences.

So it's still bringing in I've got control because I'm gonna use my experience and my intuition along with data to make the best decision for my farm operation.

Steve Halsey: I like that. Keep control. Keep control. All right, Adam, getting my Mad Libs out for you. Um, here is your sentence to complete. AI will never replace

Adam Gittins: AI will never replace farmers.

There's always going to be a need to do the physical labor, and it's a labor of love oftentimes in [00:42:00] agriculture. I'm in- been in the industry my whole life. I love everything about it, but it's certainly not something that you get out of bed and go do just to make money, right? There, there is a love of the land and the, the pride of growing something with your own hands.

And even though we're using machinery and even though we're using technology, you still have to have that farmer that wears a whole bunch of different hats. He's an agronomist, he's a mechanic, he's a businessman. You know, he's gotta have a lot of different skill sets there. And so I don't think AI could completely replace a farmer.

Steve Halsey: Yeah. Yeah, that's, uh, that is, that is, that is true and, and powerful. And what did somebody say to me? What are the three things every farmer takes when he walks out of the house? His, uh, ball caps, his car keys, and his smartphone. So, you know, AI's traveling with him every day, so. Well, Adam and Greg, thank you both so much for being on the show.

This was a really, really insightful discussion, and it's one that I really think has lessons that [00:43:00] ex- extend far beyond agriculture to other highly regulated industries, advanced manufacturing, healthcare, professional services. There are a lot of lessons that can be learned by studying how adoption is happening in agriculture, where and when trust is built.

And, you know, as I reflect on today's discussion, one of the themes that kept coming up throughout this whole thing, and Greg, I think you summed it up very nicely, farmers have always made decision through three things. You said data, experience, and intuition. And AI could be used on all three of those areas to make better, better decision-making.

And as you guys talked about, it doesn't replace any of those. It kind of strengthens the first, accelerates the second, and ultimately has to be filtered out through the third. And I think that's why agriculture is just such amazing lessons to teach other industries. You know, as, as you guys were talking, you know, [00:44:00] farmers and ranchers aren't really asking, "Is AI good?"

They're asking, "Does it work on farms and ranches like mine?" Right? Is, is that a fair assessment?

Greg Ehm: Yes.

Adam Gittins: Yeah, absolutely.

Steve Halsey: And they wanna see it proven in operations like their... And, and I think, Adam, that, that i- that concept of it's not just the micro but the macro analysis that could really unlock new things, uh, is a, is a really, really powerful insight.

To just really think about how this all comes together. And Greg, it's gonna be interesting to track over time when does adoption level off and when does trust really begin to build, uh, to a point. And I think as you said, it's really understanding what's behind the recommendations and the comparisons and that, that transparency.

So really, really powerful insight, guys. So, and for our listeners, I wanna thank you for joining us on the latest episode of Building Brand Gravity. We appreciate all of your support and hope you will continue to join future conversations. So until [00:45:00] next time, let's keep building trust, creating momentum in the market, and helping you grow your brand.

Matt Ragas: [00:00:00] We need a seat. The senior folks consistently that I talked to said, "That's great. We're getting that seat at the table, but now what do we do with it?" Right? Are we gonna take advantage of this opportunity? Are we gonna squander it? Are we gonna add value actually as counselors and advisors

Benjamin Thiele-Long: We have to think about who we're speaking to most of all.

And that is the scenario, the audience, the size, what time of day you're talking, the level of experience. It can be all manner of things, but we forget that at our peril. And so many poor presentations that I've seen are by brilliant people that have just not tailored what they're saying to the audience they're speaking to.

Greg Galant: the more you can kind of package up what the story is, the more powerful it is for, especially for a journalist because that dictates a lot. 'Cause there are still some journalists out there that might, might be feature writers and they do, you know, one or two stories a month. And the way you interact with that journalist is probably gonna have to be completely different than how you interact with the journalist who's writing three or [00:01:00] four stories a day.

Dr. Rochelle Ford: They're searching for information. And how do you make sure that your stories come up in their searches? How do you make sure that when they're, you know, talking to ChatGPT or some other generative AI source, that your, your company, that your story, your information is showing up?

Natalie Nixon: So prototypes are a beautiful thing.

They, they, they simultaneously excite teams and terrify them because prototypes mean that it, you're experimenting. It means that the answer can be, "Wow, that was a total fail." But what did you learn?

Bradley Akubuiro: But what they need to know even before they know that is that you have the situation under control and they can trust you to manage through it.

If you can't convince them of that, then you fail way before you get to the root cause.

Steve Halsey: Welcome to the 50th episode of Building Brand Gravity. I'm Steve Halsey.

Anne Green: And I'm Ann Green. [00:02:00]

Steve Halsey: You know, normally, Ann, we would be welcoming a guest at this point, but today, little bit of celebration of our major milestone here for our podcast. We figured we'd switch things up a little bit. So what we're going to do is we are going to reflect on those things that we've learned so far and use this to kind of fe- figure out where we're gonna go.

Anne Green: Yeah, when we started this podcast, we simply wanted to have better conversations, and we wanted to bring together smart people and ask thoughtful questions, you know, and explore what it takes to build brands that matter. What is the gravity that attracts people into your orbit? How can leaders best inspire followership?

What helps turn brand communications or marketing strategies into reality?

Steve Halsey: You know, and since we started this podcast, Ann, we've talked to CEOs, we've talked to founders, researchers, professors, journalists, communications leaders, innovators, and a lot of friends from around the world. [00:03:00]

Anne Green: Yeah, and what I think what surprised us, Steve, um, wasn't the differences between each topic or interviewee.

I think we've been most struck at how often they spoke to similar ideas or themes. So again, we've covered different industries, very different roles and experiences, um, but remarkably similar, similar concerns, and also similar wisdom.

Steve Halsey: Yeah, and so when we thought about today and what we wanted to put together, we, we decided we really didn't wanna do a best of.

This really isn't about our favorite guest, although I don't know how you can pick a favorite from who we've had. It's really our attempt to answer one primary question. What have the 50 conversations taught us about building brands, about building business, and leading in a more complex world? So let's take a moment to reflect on and discuss what we've learned along the way as we kick off.

Anne Green: Can't wait. Let's do it.

Matt Ragas: Whatever that solution, whatever that decision might be, we do know [00:04:00] that as communicators, uh, our job is gonna be to really explain these programs and the specifics of them, and to tie it, increasingly what we're seeing, to, uh, the business, and business outcomes and business benefits.

Rob Jekielek: And it's a very human story too, right? I think that's one of the, one of the key things that, you know, as, as communicators and as storytellers, human stories work much better than, um, jargony technical stories.

Dr. Rochelle Ford: But if you're just simply talking and telling beautiful stories and there's no actions, nothing concrete to point to, confidence doesn't rise.

Steve Halsey: One of the biggest things we've learned, communications is no longer something organizations do. It's increasingly becoming part of how organizations operate. So when you really think about this first lesson, Anne, you know that communicators don't just shape messages, they shape businesses, what really stands out to you?

You

Anne Green: know, for me, one of the things I often share with our leadership team is [00:05:00] elite communications inside and out, and so much of business strategy, its effectiveness and the ability to actually implement it, has to do with how well, you know, human beings are connecting and communicating with each other.

And that is the point of leadership, too. I mean, we're gonna talk about that more in the podcast, but shaping the message and starting with your own people, we've heard that again and again and again, that importance of the employee as that first receiver of the message, and how that message is carried out to all other stakeholders.

How a communications or marketing lead may be sharing that with their peers so that that message can be carried consistently. Another thing we will speak about several times on this podcast. I mean, to me, that's, that's what comes to mind immediately, but what comes to mind most for you with this first lesson, Steve?

Steve Halsey: Well, I think what comes to mind to me is, you know, we really started, um, at least the first interviews that I was doing were all really focused heavily on comms, and every single conversation ultimately came back [00:06:00] to what is business? What is the business value? Um, how does communications really encompass everything for that business strategy?

And it's really thinking about communications or brand as assets of the business, assets that need to be protected, assets that need to be invested in, um, assets that need to be curated over time. And so I think that's one of the things that was really interesting over the four years we've been doing the podcast, is just that shift from almost from talking about communications as a function to it as an essential driver of business value

Anne Green: Yeah, I agree.

And there's, uh, some interesting things a number of guests have said, including Dr. Rochelle Ford from Paige, some of the research they've done with the Harris Poll, where, where is it that messages, clarity in messaging plus action then builds business, builds trust, builds impact for stakeholders. So those are some of the things too, I think, that have really, really come through.

Bradley Akubuiro: It's [00:07:00] really difficult to be neutral in a pressure test. Uh, even saying nothing is equivalent to saying something. And so we've got to figure out where we stand, and we've got to actually stand there

Dr. Rochelle Ford: What are the rules? What are the ethics that you have? What are the values that your company stands by, and how do you demonstrate that those things are real?

Matt Ragas: Perhaps there's no more powerful form of communication than actual communication grounded in actions, and the alignments of, uh, words and, and deeds

Anne Green: So our second lesson is all about trust. Cl- clearly trust is top of mind for any organizational leader, and especially these days, and especially I feel those who are charged with engaging their organization stakeholders and also safeguarding and building reputation.

We've had a lot of those people on the podcast. So two things for us to reflect on today, Steve, in terms of trust is earned long before a crisis really arises, right? Two questions is the first is, has our thinking about trust evolved over these 50 episodes? And [00:08:00] also, has our thinking about crisis and crisis preparedness changes?

So I'm gonna put you on the spot and ask you those first.

Steve Halsey: Well, and I'll, I'll do a good, uh, media trading technique. I will start with the last question and kind of pivot from there. And, and I really, really enjoyed your conversation with Bradley and what you were talking about. And it, it, we used it to kind of come into this, uh, this segment right here, but when he was really talking about it's really difficult to be neutral in a pressure test, right?

Whether you engage or you don't engage, that says something. But he, but he made the comment there of, "We've got to figure out where we stand," and this is the really hard part, we actually have to stand there as things come from different sides and directions. So when I think about the fundamental aspects of trust, there are certain parts of those conversations that have not changed.

It's all about really understanding that core, what you stand for, the values, how that drives everything. [00:09:00] It was all the way from, uh, my first conversation, uh, with Dr. Matt Regus, all the way to ultimately what I think we're talking about is narrative as an operating system. So I think there's some foundational things around trust that haven't changed.

One thing that has changed, and this feels like I'm talking about something like decades ago, believe it or not, Anne, when we started building brand gravity, the large language models were not out in the universe, right? So even just the transition of in this always on environment, things like the GEO that we're talking about, if you're gonna maintain trust, you've got to make sure that your communications are clear, are credible, are everywhere, and that old information's no longer out there

Anne Green: Yeah, and to build on what you said about Bradley Akabiro from Bully Pulpit, that was one of our recent episodes that I think was just pure gold, like everything he had to say.

It's based on a book he wrote recently. But the knowing where you stand and standing there, the [00:10:00] other piece I really took away from that is we see a lot of organizations struggling with the dynamics of today, which is often, you know, vehement disagreement online, some of that fueled by bots and social media.

There's just this intensity of dialogue, kind of breakdown of that civility of, of having discussions across different opinions, the polarization piece. I think one thing organizations have really struggled with is this question of, well, how do we not step into a hornet's nest, which can turn into how do we appease or keep all the stakeholders calm, which can come off as highly inauthentic and can come off as, as really not a great way to build trust with stakeholders if it feels like an organization is just trying to placate or tell someone what they want to hear versus, as you said earlier, knowing where they stand and standing there even if they know that some in their stakeholders may not love what they're sharing.

But I do like the [00:11:00] assertion, and I believe it, that that builds more trust over time, and it does prepare you ahead of a crisis. So lots of good food for thought across all these 50 episodes on this issue.

Dr. Rochelle Ford: AI is coming up in every single conversation, whether it's internal, external, whether you're talking to people in Japan or Singapore or in England and, or in, um, the Netherlands or here in the US or, or Brazil or Canada. It's coming up in every conversation.

Natalie Nixon: The qualitative dimension of work is going to be increasingly important in a world where basic tasks are increasingly going to be taken over by AI and such.

So that qualitative dimension of self-compassion will be best reflected in, in premier organizations by leaders who show compassion, who show curiosity. The reason why I say that we're not in the midst of a tech revolution, we're in the midst of a human [00:12:00] revolution, is just, number one, the root of that is just my total frustration with our tech crush.

I call it our tech infatuation or tech crush, where we forget the, at the end of the day, the technology is a tool.

Steve Halsey: Well, Anne, I think we're finally at a point where we can stop asking the question of whether AI will change communications. I've come to a conclusion: it does. And, but one of the things that's really coming through with the conversations we're having, uh, particularly lately, I think the better question isn't what becomes, uh, more robot- But what becomes uniquely human and, and how does a human factor into the equation?

What are your thoughts on that?

Anne Green: Oh my God, so many. Um, Natalie Nixon, who we've had on the podcast twice, who's a consultant and writer and, and creativity expert and sort of catalyst for change and innovation, she made the assertion that we're in a human revolution as much, if not more, than a technology [00:13:00] revolution, and I think that's really, really powerful.

There's a philosopher and writer, Stewart Brand, who's been around since the days of the hippies in San Francisco. He founded the Whole Earth Catalog, and he's written a million books, and I just heard him interviewed and he was talking about the fact that AI is gonna really force us to contemplate humanity in a much deeper way.

What are the ... What is the value of human judgment? Where does it come in? So I do think we are seeing strong evidence of, yes, there'll be all kinds of ways in which AI is making us already more efficient and productive and all those good things, but where is it that that humanity and that human judgment and the revolution we need to have in understanding our own value in the mix here, especially as marketers and communicators.

I love that we're thinking really intentionally about that, and it's something at GNS we're inviting everybody from whatever their role, most junior to most senior, to really actively contemplate as they adopt AI into their workflows. I mean, what else would you add to, to your thinking here?

Steve Halsey: [00:14:00] Yeah. I think for me, the, the thinking really evolved.

You know, the initial conversation was, well, AI in the loop. Let's put AI in the loop, and then it evolved to, well, let's make sure we keep the human in the loop. My view on it, uh, kind of as I've matured, that my thinking in this area is human as architect, and I really believe that, that we should create the systems and the structure.

Um, you know, that's the part that's gotta be innately human because, you know, I've been working the last almost three years training, uh, training my own model, jokingly call it ChatGP Steve. And it does a really good job, but what's interesting is even with something that you've curated so close, at the end of the day, it is the human as the architect.

Because if you just let the AI run, it's gonna run wild, not because it's nefarious, just because it's not getting that check. One of the other things I thought was interesting, I was at a, uh, PR council meeting last week, and the conversation of [00:15:00] AI came up. And, um, you know, one of our, one of our peers there said, "Hey, we've actually started building into our test for new hires the use of AI."

And, you know, there was a lot of conversation, "Oh my gosh, what? Are you doing that? How can you really gauge?" And they said, "Well, we want to see whether these individuals can think critically." You know, not just does the AI come up with a good strategy, but how are they thinking as the human of the architect to bring that creativity, to fact-check it, to do that.

So I thought that was, was really interesting with how things have evolved from, "Oh my gosh, every job is going away," to now the conversation is really, okay, how can humans be the architects to really use AI to create more, to be better? But then kind of like what Benjamin said in, in his comment, and, and I, I'd appreciate your, your thought on this, but that idea that, you know, leaders are ultimately going to be evaluating on the [00:16:00] human things, that ability to show compassion, curiosity.

Anne Green: Yeah, Benjamin Thiele-Long, amazing communicator, has been a barrister, um, a comms lead, you know, very senior, and a writer. And when we were talking about this holistic view of presentation skills, media training, just presenting in general, he has a very holistic view of it, which I'm very bought into. He's really right that those are very high order skills that are often under leverage, and they're gonna be the skills where paired with AI, but not really replaced by it, are gonna be paramount.

And the other thing that you make me think of, Steve, is we're in an interesting position in our industry where we are both adopting for our own organization and driving in that way, but we're also counselors for our clients, and working with them, walking this path with them, advising them. And so that allows our people

I do want them, and I love that story from the PR council meeting. I do want to see how people are thinking [00:17:00] critically about the whole breadth of AI and what that means to us, the good, the bad, the ugly, the amazing opportunities. Because at the end of the day, we in our field have to embrace and think deeply about both, or else we can't do our job.

And I think that puts us in such a great position to step back and watch this revolution unfold, even as we're participating in it.

Ron Culp: If you understand the business of the business and you can do an annual report and an earnings release, then you understand the business. They're hiring people who have more strategic view and a higher business IQ because they know that good writers make good thinkers, but good thinkers also need to understand the business.

David Albritton: But you should also learn as much as you can outside of your function to, you know, really develop your business acumen and understand [00:18:00] how the organization makes money, whether that's a for-profit, nonprofit, education organization, uh, whatever it may be How your function relates to that is your going to be, and your understanding of that is going to be your success factor.

Howard Handler: In brand management, you are taught to think about the whole business and that you're not there to just deliver one thing like sales revenue or market share. You're there to deliver the profit. And that's something that never really left me.

Steve Halsey: You know, Anne, looking back, this may have been, been the biggest evolution in my own questioning and discussions over 50 episodes.

Earlier episodes like we covered earlier, we're, we're really talking about communications, because that's kind of where the foundation of building brand gravity started. But today we're now really asking how communication shapes business itself, right? We've moved on from the conversation of, "Hey, should we have a seat at the table?

Do we [00:19:00] have a seat at the table? What should we do about it?" Now it's really moved on to business fluency really is leadership fluency.

Anne Green: Yeah. I, I couldn't agree more. You know, one of my favorite, personal favorite interviews over the 50 was speaking with Howard Handler, who has had an incredible career. And I met him first when he was chief marketing officer of Virgin Mobile USA when I was involved in launching that brand in the US with the Virgin company and Sprint.

And Howard had already been at Burley Bear and NFL and Lorne Michaels' company Broadway Video, and he went on to Major League Soccer. And he's ... He, he's had an incredible career as a very communication savvy marketer. But Howard was talking about from the very beginning in, in his path, brand management, but also how he understands the communications function.

He knew understanding the whole business was so, so critical, and being in partnership with oth- others, he's very people-focused in that way, and we'll kind of come to that theme again later. But it's funny because [00:20:00] everything he was talking about echoes one of our most recent podcast episodes with Megan Noel, who's chief corporate affairs officer at Covisint.

Um, she was speaking about that evolution of that role, the CCO plus role, that she frames it as the storytellers being put all together. And then she also talked about the absolute critical nature of understanding she cannot do her job alone. She's in a matrix and a partnership with all her other C-suite leaders.

She has to know all parts of the business. She has to go deeper than ever before on all parts of the business and really own them Despite, you know, she's executing maybe something different than the CFO obviously, et cetera. So I think this idea of business fluency and leadership and the role of comms and marketing is absolutely central to this podcast.

Steve Halsey: Well, and, and, and I think as you think about business fluency, there, there's a part of actually understanding how the [00:21:00] financial sheet work, right? The, that ability to do an annual report, to have that discussion, to be able to shape and offer perspective on that. But I think part of the, part of really having that business fluency means spending time in the business, you know?

One of the things I was absolutely blessed with, you know, early in my career was the ability to do ride-along with sales reps. You know, and that ability to walk into a conference room or a meeting or a factory floor and actually see how the sale and the discussion happens really opens up your mind to really understand what matters most for the business.

And so when you understand, um, you know, not just the, the numbers, the X's, the O's, but you really understand what drives that business decision, the communications program that can come out of that, the gravity that you can build is so much greater. So, you know, one thing I would say to all of [00:22:00] our, uh, corporate listeners out there, if you have the opportunity with your junior staff, with your agency partners, find an opportunity for them to do a ride-along with your sales reps and really see the business in action because the payoff, the ROI will be tremendous.

Anne Green: Steve, you literally took the words straight out of my brain. I g- what I was about to say, I want to weigh in and say one of the things that was hard coming out of COVID is we were all virtual obviously. It was a public health emergency, et cetera. But also it's a budget-pressed time, and we can do a lot more virtually.

I mean, look at our podcast here. But the fact is, is that there's been such a change from when you and I started our career where of course you were at the client site all the time. Of course when I worked with GE Appliances I was on the factory floors in Louisville watching the refrigerators fly through the air in this factory that was the size of two football fields.

And you and I have a gazillion stories of this, as do many of our listeners. And I've seen a really slow return, you know, in some cases faster. [00:23:00] But we, we have got to get our folks out there more, and we want to be in partnership with our clients on that. And even recently, you know, as we've shifted as a business our real estate footprint, released more capital, we're funding, you know, meetings of our largest teams in our sectors to come together in person, do on-the-ground visits, either client visits or experiential visits to, you know, ex- experiences that really matter for their sector and their discipline and their expertise.

And I think we all in this industry need to be committed to that. I, I love that you brought that up.

Howard Handler: So getting a door slammed in your face doesn't feel good, but there's something to learn from that. And, and, you know, do you have a certain amount of tenacity? Are you willing to, to be persistent? Um, and I don't know, I, I just, I think a lot of those things helped me get to where I needed to [00:24:00] be.

Matt Ragas: But whether it's a topic like business acumen or data and analytics or DEI or AI, um, as long as we embrace curiosity and lifelong learning and being open to what we don't know and wanting to keep having that explorer mentality, um, this is one of the best fields that you could possibly be in.

Benjamin Thiele-Long: Whether you are just starting out your career in comms, wanting to get a foot on the ladder and be part of that team, advising those people, the way that you do that, of course, is by assimilating information. It is, of course, by learning. It is, of course, by using technology to your strengths. But ultimately, you've got to translate that

Anne Green: Our lesson five is all about curiosity and tenacity as a competitive advantage.

And you know, and Steven, thinking about our episodes to date, uh, I feel like many of our guests rarely claimed absolute certainty, and I think this is true of a lot of people who are actually truly expert. They're simply deeply curious about the topics we explored with them. Now, [00:25:00] these are all experts in their space.

Without a doubt, we wouldn't have hit them up to be on here if they weren't, weren't. You know, we wouldn't be honored with their presence if they weren't. But they were so clear time and again about all there is to still explore and learn, especially with technology, leadership. You know, did that strike you as well?

Steve Halsey: It, it did. And, and one of the things kind of reflecting at, like the body and work and aggregate of all those discussions is I don't think we had a single person on the podcast who wasn't curious, you know? And I think that's part of what makes a great communications leader, maybe what's required to be a great communications leader, is that curiosity to, and, and a little bit of that wonder of how does it work.

And you've, you've heard me say this, and, and no, no disrespect to people making cheesier pizza, but if you're trying to market a cheesier pizza, what is a lie? It's got more cheese, right? But you think about some of these really in-depth B2B markets that we're [00:26:00] doing where we're talking about nitroalkanes.

Who doesn't love a good nitroalkane, right? But that ability to really get in and be curious and talk to the chemist and then understand, oh my gosh, well, this is the stuff that makes, uh, makes makeup go on a little bit better, or makes toothpaste come out a little bit better, or has less splatter when you're putting paint on the wall.

Being curious allows us as communicators to find stories that are often missed, and an opportunity to make a connection and to educate in, in, in ways that we otherwise wouldn't if we just took the dry language and then just put it in AP style. I mean, that's my initial reaction

Anne Green: Yeah, you know, it's funny, I'm often asked as you are too, if we're interviewing younger people or I'm mentoring, I do a lot of mentoring of students or young folks in their careers, what do I look for?

I've always said intellectual curiosity. That sounds highfalutin, but it really is about being intellectually curious, wanting to learn new things. And I think that's so [00:27:00] critical today because it is an overwhelming environment. Change is happening so fast. There's stuff that, you know, we don't know where it's going, and the news cycle can be intense around AI.

There's all the promise, but there's also the scary thing about workforce and labor, and what does our society look like in 5, 10, 20 years? So the curiosity piece lets you find that excitement and enthusiasm and optimism that you need to move forward, the hope and the what- the gee whiz of it all. I love people who are into things.

I love fans. I love fandom. I never, I never liked the whole too cool for school attitude where I don't get-- I don't show excitement about anything. In our field, especially in client service, to show the passion and the excitement you have for the work you do, the work your client does, is such a superpower, and it brings so much joy to the work.

But the other piece we identified here is tenacity. And I know going back to Howard Handler, he talked about you get a lot of doors slammed in your face early on. [00:28:00] And, you know, Benjamin talked about where you start off on that first rung of the ladder as a communicator and how you grow. We've heard that time and again.

Um, so you know, one of the things Natalie Nixon talked about was that pairing with wonder and rigor. So you have the wonder and the curiosity, but you also have the rigor to keep pushing and learning and driving and making it more precise. So, you know, I don't know, Steve, if you have any final thoughts on tenacity for this lesson.

Steve Halsey: Well, ten- tenacity, I loved, uh, Howard's story, and, and that's another one. I think every great communications leader that, that, that I've, I've met, worked for, worked with, served, whatever terminology you wanna do, have been very tenacious, and, you know, in terms of where they're going. But, but I think, you know, actually our very first guest, Dr.

Matt Ragas, you know, he was really talking about it, and he, he really talked about embracing curiosity and lifelong learning and having an explorer's mentality. And he, and he said [00:29:00] something to the effect that if you do that, this is one of the best fields you could ever possibly be in. You know, and this is somebody who's educating, uh, the next generation of leaders.

He's written a bunch of books. He's talked to executives. And he still is full of that wonder and that curiosity, and then very, being very tenacious and finding that story, delivering that business impact. So yeah, I think those have been really, really strong themes in terms of creati- creativity, curiosity, tenacity throughout this, uh, 50 episodes to date.

Anne Green: Absolutely love that.

Steve Halsey: AI doesn't replace narrative, but it exposes whether you have one and whether it's a right one, honestly. When narrative isn't clearly defined, AI can very quickly become a liability because it ends up becoming the de facto substitute for leadership clarity, and you really don't want that.

Dr. Rochelle Ford: It is a new narrative [00:30:00] battleground.

You have to humanize things. And when you, when you put that human face onto what it, what it matters to me, I think that that actually helps and also helps you to break into other areas in which you can tell stories.

Anne Green: So the questions that come to mind for me, what are the guiding principles behind a given strategy?

Can we articulate the narrative around and behind them tied to organizational mission, vision, values, as well as current business objectives, right? Does this all hang together executive to executive, no matter what their functional area may be? Can this narrative scale up and down and across to reach into every part of the company?

Those to me are some of the key questions that you're raising with this premise. The next lesson in some ways quotes us, Steve. I'm gonna take credit 'cause we've been talking all year about a concept we call narrative as an operating system. You know, it's something you raised, Steve, in our [00:31:00] 2026 predictions episode at the start of the year.

Go back and check it out if you wanna test how we're doing. It really resonated strongly with us at the time, and I actually truly fell in love with the phrase almost immediately 'cause it struck something so true and so timely for me. We knew we were onto something with this concept of narrative as an operating system.

But wow, I have to tell you, the response to it has been even stronger than I think you or I anticipated. Every time I speak about it, and I do often, leaders in our field just intuitively get it. They just get it. It lands, right? The importance of thinking about your narrative as a true operating system, not just like, oh, here's a page of messages.

It's the spine that connects the entire organizational nervous system. That importance just grows and grows to me, particularly In an age of, like, low trust and channel fragmentation and a lot of technological change. So I mean, this was your term, Steve, so what's your take on how this has resonated for you and how it's evolved over, you know, since we [00:32:00] first talked about this in January?

Steve Halsey: Well, and one of the things I think is really interesting as we think about narrative, and, and I liked in, in that discussion, and you used the definition of big N narrative versus small N narrative. You know, the small N narrative is a message we wanna deliver. When we talk about big N narrative, we're really talking about, like, the DNA, the, the essence of a company, how decisions are made.

And, and for me, really where that, where, where the concept kind of developed is, yes, we all understand what reputation is. We understand what brand is. We understand what trust is. We understand what makes trust erode. We understand all these different factors. But the reality is, is every organization has a rhythm, almost like a, like a living being, that really carries itself forward.

So if you have leaders that all agree on the same direction, but they execute it very differently, the narrative that employees are gonna feel, that customers, that communities, [00:33:00] is not gonna be in sync. You know, it's going to be a little bit, uh, little bit fragmented. So it's this really id- really the idea of narrative should guide what we do because we all understand, um, what our purpose is.

We all understand what would be for the betterment of the organization. And you're ... Everything is operating within a set of, uh, of a unifying context, I guess, in the ethereal grand w- grand way to think about it.

Anne Green: To kind of get our hands around how big and central this is, you know, this is one way I'm thinking about it.

We talk about leadership, great leadership needs a great narrative. It also takes courage for leaders, especially at large, multilayered organizations, and we work with many of them, with lots of employees, lots of divisions, lots of pieces. It takes a lot of organizational courage and cooperation and leadership will, tenacity- To [00:34:00] align a narrative so that whatever touchpoint is out there, I'm s- this team is speaking with employees.

This group is out in a sales call. This is what is showing up online that the large language models and AI will discover and feed without anybody clicking on your website. The AI piece of this, GEO AI discovery, makes it even more acute now to have the leadership courage to come together around a more unified narrative.

It doesn't mean it's, uh, stale or rigid or lockstep, or that it's just a bunch of people reading off the same script. N- not at all. In fact, in an age that needs real human connection and authenticity, and where people have a high BS meter for corporate speak, it, it really means knowing that operating system, knowing the spine of the narrative, and then being able to translate it to your division, to your stakeholders in this moment, in this digitally human-to-human.

So this is a [00:35:00] drum I think we're gonna be beating intensely going forward, 'cause I do not see this getting less important, and I also don't see it getting easier for organizations. This is not easy to do always.

Steve Halsey: Well, a- and, and it really requires, as you point out, to be a realist. You, you, you can ignore a narrative at your own peril because it exists, it is there, and as you mentioned, particularly, uh, with the large language models pulling everything and all these previously disparate points of communications or stories, um, or sentiment about a company, that's now all being instantly aggregated whether you ask for it or not.

So I think that's the other important part about narrative is it really requires you to take a critical, realistic look as to how your organization, your business strategy, your products are showing up in the world so that you can really build and sustain over time the [00:36:00] narrative that moves you in the direction that you wanna go, that's consistent with your values, that's consistent with your leadership philosophy, that's consistent with your business strategy.

But that really requires a realistic look at your narrative and where it, where it resides and how you move it forward, and then how you get your own people and your customers to be ambassadors to share that narrative.

Anne Green: And frankly, what more fun and engaging work is there for our field, truly?

Howard Handler: I've been really, really lucky in terms of the people who are willing to, to mentor me and help me see things that at the time I couldn't see for myself or teach me some things

Benjamin Thiele-Long: That comes from learning, giving good advice, and having that human impact and that empathy that allows you to communicate your ideas effectively and to be trusted.

And ultimately, if you can do that, you're on the right path [00:37:00] to a great communication strategy or a great career. It doesn't matter what it is, they, they apply the same way. Um, and we forget that to our peril, I think.

David Albritton: I encourage everyone to have as many mentors as they can, uh, to kind of help them understand more about the marketplace, about the industry they're in, about the job function, whatever those things in.

And you should open your mind up to learning from everybody in a 360 degree, uh, you know, uh, circle, cir- you know, kind of circle. When you open your mind up to that, I think what you'll find is that you become a w- m- you know, much more rounded individual and a much better leader overall. And, uh, so that's, uh, kind of the takeaway I'd love for you all to think about today.

Steve Halsey: You know, Ann, across every conversation we've had, whether we've talked about AI, yes, I had to say it again, crisis, business, journalism, leadership, marketing, communications, or even creativity, you know, the common denominator in all of those was people

Anne Green: Yeah, a- [00:38:00] absolutely. And it really goes to show, Steve, that the concept of building brand gravity is all about that.

It's about those human insights and human connections. And, you know, to go back to Howard, um, when I met him at Virgin Mobile, he was so clear about the importance of human connection and mentoring and creating strong relationships over time. And his episode is a real blast just given his wide-ranging career, but there was so much good food for thought.

But I think every single guest we talk about, whether it's, again, Megan talking about working with your C-suite peers in a matrix, or Natalie talking about what is it that catalyzes a team to be curious and creative, that creates and fuels innovation, crea- Or it's David Grossman talking about what it is that employees are or aren't telling you and what truly exceptional leadership is needed today.

It's all about those connections with people.

Steve Halsey: Yeah. And, you know, one of the earlier episodes we did with, uh, David Albritton, uh, right now he's a very noted, uh, [00:39:00] executive coach, but he was a chief communicator who actually became a business leader and a CEO. And, you know, when we were talking, he was sharing his lessons and, and it was really be open to finding as many mentors as you can, and listen and learn.

But he was also making the point that your mentor doesn't just need to be a fellow communicator or a fellow marketer. It's somebody that you can learn from about the business, about life, about leadership, about how you carry yourself. But, but that was really, I thought, was a interesting, um, thing that David said.

And you'd mentioned Howard mentioned it. Um, Ron Culp had mentioned it. Uh, there ... So many of our leaders, you know, through these discussions were really talking about the importance- Of mentorship, of learning, of being curious. And, you know, like you said, at the end of the day, that all comes down to people and investing [00:40:00] in people, investing in ourselves.

Anne Green: Which I think is so important because as, at the stage we're at in our careers and many of the people we're engaging with, mentorship and bringing other people into our field, making it vibrant, diverse, um, enc- encouraging younger people to be still in a field that is this exciting and, and fuels your curiosity and learning and c- lets you do creative work, strategic work, be project manager, but also be guiding clients.

I, I, I can't say enough of still how vibrant I feel this field is. And I think it's particularly important in a time where we're reflecting so much on what jobs of the future look like because of technology.

Steve Halsey: And, and one of the things I've really found interesting through my career is, is yes, it's a very, very competitive field in a lot of ways, but I have always found that people have been very open and very generous with their time and with their perspective.

And honestly, that's part of the reason we're, you know, we made a very conscious [00:41:00] decision, um, in even the guests we invited, to have people from fellow agencies, to have people we compete with in some way, shape, or form, to share ideas, to learn from each other, to exchange knowledge, and to share that more broadly for everybody.

So, so again, while it's a, a highly competitive field, I have found every step of the way that people have been amazingly generous on a personal level of, of sharing their perspectives, their views, and, and trying to help each other out.

Anne Green: So before we start to wrap up, Steve, let's reflect for a minute. Um, looking back, what surprised you or sticks with you most over the 50 episodes?

Steve Halsey: What surprised me the most, Sara, is, well, honestly, that we're here at episode 50. I remember, I remember, uh, when, when we sold in the concept and said, "Yeah, we're gonna start up a, uh, we're gonna start up a podcast and it's building brand gravity, and we're, it's about pulling people in the org-," and we had a great construct And then it [00:42:00] was sitting around trying to get the courage to do that first interview, and then that second interview, and to build that muscle memory.

So probably not the answer that you were, you were thinking about, but, but for me, one of the most interesting things was to go through the process of, you know, we've counseled, we've sold, we've supported clients creating different podcasts and things like that. But it was going through the process of creating it and then having the discipline to stick with it, and now to learn and, and to see what's gonna be next.

How about for you?

Anne Green: Well, I, I would build on that because, um, I've always said when I'm doing media training that for me, when I do media interviews as a CEO or as an expert in a certain field of communications or a sector, which I, which I do fairly often, or I appear on a podcast as a guest, it is making me sit in that driver's seat so I'm not just the armchair quarterback or the backseat driver giving you all the [00:43:00] important tips on how to speak well and do a good interview.

I'm, I'm having to live my own advice. And I do agree, Steve, that bringing this to life, um, you know, I wouldn't say there were naysayers, but definitely there's a lot of podcasts in the podcast graveyard out there. And I think that going back to one of our lessons, to me, maybe not surprising, but the biggest lesson is curiosity and tenacity are required to make it to 50 episodes and beyond.

We have invested time and care in this because there are conversations worth having. There's people we wanna talk to. You and I love being out there circulating and learning. We like to share and lift others up and share what they're thinking. And when you come to it that spirit, people come, as you said, with tremendous generosity.

And, um, I think sometimes people get hung up. You know, you as chief growth officer have to talk to folks a lot about networking or staying connected, and the biggest lesson I have, and the podcast is a manifestation of that, is [00:44:00] that it's truly just about the joy of connecting with other people in ways that you learn about them and you learn new things, and you talk about issues that matter to you, and you also have fun, and you talk about fun stuff too.

And I think we all learn and grow from that. So I can't wait to keep this going for the next 50 episodes. It's obviously a lot of work for us, but that, that to me is the big reflection.

Steve Halsey: And I was also gonna say just, just our guests, you know? We would have an episode and you'd be doing the editing, you're like, "Wow, that's great.

I don't know how it gets better than that." And then we have another guest and you're like, "Wow." Yeah. I mean, these conversations have been so dynamic, so powerful, but yet each of them gives you some really tangible nuggets that you can, uh, you can take away. So, um, there's amazing professionals out there and some amazing perspectives.

But like you said, I, I think a lot of that comes down to stories of curiosity and tenacity.

Anne Green: Yeah, and it's funny. Yeah, Steve's heard me say so many times, "Oh my God, this is the best conversation ever. Wait [00:45:00] till you hear it." So I am nothing if not enthusiastic. So this is actually a wonderful transition to our close, and for those sticking with us through the whole episode, thank you.

Before we close today, wanna take a moment of gratitude. We have a lot of people to thank as we reach this 50th milestone.

Steve Halsey: Yes, absolutely, and we, we really wanna thank our many, many guests and recognize them, and you, our listeners who, uh, who have been tuning in. And our core Building Brand Gravity team, especially Chris Martin, who came up with and helped sell in the initial idea of doing a podcast.

Whitney Fincannon, who picked up the reins and really drove this forward. And, uh, you, you, you... She's herded Ann and I very well through this process. Callie, our guest coordinator extraordinaire. And then from the Sweetfish team, Jeremy Rife and the entire team. Um, lots of ideas, lots of production support, really pushing us through, um, these early 50 episodes.

And our incredible [00:46:00] colleagues across the, the entire GNS Integrated Marketing Communications group. Our people at GNS Business Communications and Morgan Meyers, we couldn't do this without your support, inspiration, and even your guest ideas.

Anne Green: Yeah, and we have to also acknowledge all the friends of the pod out there, which really includes everyone at The Page Society, Roger Bolton and his team, and now Richelle Ford and her team.

And, and also a special shout-out to all of you who took a moment to share an episode on the socials or who sent a link to a friend or a colleague. We love it when people share, as well as when they weigh in to challenge our thinking or share another point of view, so please keep it up.

Steve Halsey: And that makes those mailbag episodes even better when, when, uh, when we've got your feedback to work from.

So I think if there, if there's one thing as I reflect back that, that these 50 conversations have taught us, Ann, it's that, you know, brands aren't built just by logos. They aren't built just by campaigns. They're built one decision, one relationship, [00:47:00] one conversation at a time.

Anne Green: Yeah, and that's really why we started Building Brand Gravity.

Steve Halsey: And so as we finish what will be now our 50th conversation on this podcast, we believe that more than ever.

Anne Green: Thank you for joining us, and here's to the next 50 conversations. Woo. Thank you, Steve, for being my great co-host. Woo.

Steve Halsey: Thanks, Anne. And join us soon for another episode of Building Brand Gravity