Practical Wisdom for Leaders with Scott J. Allen, Ph.D.

Beyond Quick Fixes: Reimagining How We Develop Leaders with Dr. Barbara Kellerman

• Scott J. Allen • Season 1 • Episode 287

Share episode

Send us a text

Dr. Barbara Kellerman is a Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership. She was the Founding Executive Director of the Center, and a member of the Kennedy School faculty for over twenty years. Kellerman has held professorships at Fordham, Tufts, Fairleigh Dickinson, George Washington, Christopher Newport, and the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. She also served as Director of the Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership at the University of Maryland.

Kellerman received her B.A. from Sarah Lawrence College, and her M.A. M.Phil., and Ph.D. (in Political Science) degrees from Yale University. She was awarded a Danforth Fellowship and three Fulbright fellowships. At Uppsala (1996-97), she held the Fulbright Chair in American Studies. Kellerman was cofounder of the International Leadership Association (ILA) and is author and editor of many books. Kellerman has also appeared on media outlets such as CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Reuters, and BBC, and has contributed articles and reviews to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Harvard Business Review.

From 2015 to 2023 she was listed by Global Gurus as among the “World’s Top 30 Management Professionals.”

A Few Quotes From This Episode

  • “Leadership is learning lifelong...just like medicine or law.”
  • “You don’t develop leaders overnight.”
  • “Because the (leadership) industry is so profitable, nobody really wants to break up the existing model.”

Resources Mentioned in This Episode 

About The International Leadership Association (ILA)

About  Scott J. Allen

My Approach to Hosting

  • The views of my guests do not constitute "truth." Nor do they reflect my personal views in some instances. However, they are views to consider, and I hope they help you clarify your perspective. Nothing can replace your reflection, research, and exploration of the topic.


♻️ Please share with others and follow/subscribe to the podcast!
⭐️ Please leave a review on Apple, Spotify, or your platform of choice.
➡️ Follow me on LinkedIn for more on leadership, communication, and tech.
📜 Subscribe to my weekly newsletter featuring four hand-picked articles.
🌎 You can learn more about my work on my Website.



Note: Voice-to-text transcriptions are about 90% accurate, and conversations-to-text do not always translate perfectly. I include it to provide you with the spirit of the conversation.

Scott Allen  0:00 

Okay, everybody, welcome to Practical Wisdom for Leaders. Thank you so much for checking in wherever you are in the world. I have a returning guest, the woman with the most appearances on the show, and so I'm always thankful when Barbara Kellerman stops by. She is just such a fun person to have a conversation with. We were just talking before we started recording about the many directions we could take our conversation today because she is a polymath. So, I think we've honed in on we are going to focus a little bit on leadership development today. And she wrote an incredible book a few years ago, and really explored this topic on some level. But we were both just kind of pontificating a little bit about the current state of the leadership industry, so to speak. And where are we and are we better off than we were before that industry existed? And how do we think about developing leaders moving forward? How do we do this work differently? We maybe don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we probably need to make some adjustments if we're going to do this work really, truly, well. So, Barbara, as always, thank you so much for checking in. Appreciate you being here. I trust that you're well.

 

Barbara Kellerman  1:15 

I am well, Scott. And you said I guested many times, that's better than being ghosted many times. So, thank you very much for having me on as always, and as always, I look forward to a great conversation. By the way, the book to which you referred, if you don't mind me being so bold as to give the title, it's called ‘Professionalizing Leadership,’ and it's an Oxford book that came out in 2018. 

 

Scott Allen  1:39 

Well, and in ‘Professionalizing Leadership,’ you talk about the industry. So, let's bring people into that conversation just as a starting point, and then let's see where the conversation takes us. 

 

Barbara Kellerman  1:50

Sounds great. 

 

Scott Allen  1:51

So, what do you think? How do you think about the industry? You've, literally, over the course of your career, watched some of this emerge. You've been a part of it on some level because you're producing and bring listeners into how you define it, how you think about the leadership industry. 

 

Barbara Kellerman  2:07 

Okay. So, let's be clear, Scott, people have even some of the greatest minds in human history, have been interested in leadership since recorded history. We have only to go back to the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans, whether it's Plutarch's lives or the emphasis in Plato. On philosopher kings, we can go to China at Lao-tzu and Confucius. There has been an interest in leadership forever. So, the leadership industry is not, per se, new in that it has professional interest in leadership. By the way, these ancient political thinkers, the ones that I just named, and many others, you can update the list slightly and talk about Machiavelli and so on, once knew. And the reason I use the term ‘leadership industry’ is that you're right. I've been around very, delicately put, I might add, I have been around for most of it. I often started around the year 1980, obviously, these things don't begin with the struggle of a gong. But I would say around 40, 50 years ago, people started being interested in leadership in new and different ways. So, business schools were originally founded in the middle of the 19th century to improve leaders or managers. The word ‘leadership’ was not used then. I think, by most accounts, and I include some of the best and brightest, a gentleman by the name, Harvard faculty, department administrator by the name Rakesh Corona has tracked this very, very closely. I think, by most agreements, the effort on the part of business schools, again, they began in the middle of the 19th century, well into the 20th, they were trying to develop outstanding leadership cadres. And I think one of the reasons the word ‘leader’ subsumed the word ‘a lead,’ or ‘a manager,’ or ‘administrator -- ’ you and I know very well the words get conflated, to this day, they get conflated, which is unfortunate -- is because they realize they hadn't done that well and they were going to now increasingly focus on the person at the top, etc., etc. So, I would say, in business schools, schools and public administration, increasingly, some schools have leadership programs, leadership departments. The number of these, as you know better than I, Scott, has proliferated in recent decades. What has not, however, increased is the level, and I'll just talk about the United States, although God knows, we could apply the same to Western democracies more generally, when it's not increase is people's levels of trust in, faith in, particularly, public sector leaders, but interestingly, leaders across the board. Leaders in religion, leaders in education, leaders even in the military, who generally do better. So, there's been this curious dissonance between the burgeoning of the leadership industry and the decreased level of trust and faith, and arguably, even performance of people at the top. And the last thing I'll say now is that the reasons for this are complex. I'm not suggesting the leadership industry is to blame for this. What I am, however, suggesting is the leadership industry has not really helped the situation, and from that, I extrapolate that we could do a better job than we do now, to use your term, developing readers.

 

Scott Allen  5:42 

Yes. I'd love to hear how you're thinking about the why. Why haven't we had? Billions and billions of dollars have been invested. Probably, over that period of time, we could get into a T there, maybe, across the world, but billions of dollars have been invested in training and development, whether it's in the educational sector, whether it's in governmental organizations, nonprofits, for-profit businesses, the military, billions of dollars have been invested. What are some of the reasons you see that we maybe haven't moved the needle to the degree we would hope?

 

Barbara Kellerman  6:18 

So, you say we haven't, and, of course, we're still not. There's data to show how much money is still being poured into this. Pour. There was a Harvard Business Review in 2023 that documented how much money we are still investing in leadership development programs. And you're equally correct to say that they have been disappointing, which, as you point out, raises the question of why? What's gone wrong? Well, let's begin by saying it's really hard. You don't develop leaders overnight. Plato showed you couldn't be a leader until you were about 50 years old, and that you shouldn't be a leader until you had the most formidable training and education imaginable, everything from mathematics to military service. So, I would say they both really matter. What particularly matters, as far as I'm concerned, is that the industry has been driven by, dare I say it, as all industries are, money. And you don't make money from the best kinds of education. They're not money makers because they take time and they take energy. I would say that a lot of the leadership industry is based on the supposition that leadership can be learned relatively quickly and relatively easily. Moreover, they don't bake into most of these programs, which they should. So, you can't be a doctor or a lawyer now without continuing your education. It is presumed that if you graduate from medical school in 2025, great, but let's say you get your degree, your medical degree, in June of 2025, nowhere on earth is it presumed that you're done with your education. Continuing education is now baked in, built into virtually all professional trainings. So, I would argue that, because the industry has been so profitable, in other words, people haven’t bitched and moaned about it, if I can use the word ‘bitch’ on your podcast. People seem satisfied. They finish a course, and they're asked, “How did you like the course?” They go, “This was completely great.” And industries will complain about the trader or the trading organizations, whether in the private sector, public sector, not for profit. They will say, “We are not satisfied with what we're getting. We don’t feel we're getting a good bang for our buck.” But because of the incentives that I mentioned earlier, which is many of these programs are cash cows, nobody really wants to break up the existing model. So, years ago, I suggested, actually, I was at Harvard at the time. I suggested that we develop what I call a professional program of leadership that we emulate and stop treating it like an occupation. We don't even treat it as a rotation where credentialing and licensing is required. You can't be a truck driver without proving your competence, or a hairdresser, whatever. You've got to prove your confidence. In leadership, you don't require any credentialing, any licensing, any continuing education. We just somehow magically assume, “You take my course, you take my executive program, you take my year-long program, and you too will be a leader, and you'll be a wonderful leader. You'll lead wisely, and you'll lead well.” The professional model is out there. We, leadership, do not have to reinvent the wheel, but again, it needs to be an investment of time and energy. But, above all, we need thought leaders and good, primarily, they probably should be at academic institutions, where you could easily have a program so that an undergraduate who wants to specialize in leadership takes two years of leadership programs as an undergraduate where they get it intellectually, and then they go to a business school, or school of public administration, or School of government, they get another year or two, and then they learn how to do it in terms of practice. So, it's a combination of theory and practice that, again, every other profession does it. This is not rocket science, but somehow, we in leadership have assumed you can learn to lead quickly and easily. And, as I said, that is just not possible.

 

Scott Allen  10:40 

But it's so interesting. Yes, when you step back and look at it, to become a master carpenter or a beautician or a pilot or a surgeon or an attorney or a CPA, there's a shared set of definitions. Now, they could be contested, they could be argued, but there's a shared body of knowledge. That body of knowledge is scaffolded in a way that a learner, you could go to karate. You start as a white belt, and then you end up as a black belt and beyond. And that learning is scaffolded in a way that makes really, really good sense. And again, you might have different methodologies, different perspectives. Do we want to learn through the Suzuki method, or is it another method? It doesn't matter, but at least there's a method, and there's an opportunity for us to, not only have the book knowledge, but to potentially develop some skill, if it's a surgeon or a pilot. And we're going to have mentors and coaches and get feedback. And then we're going to have experience. So, the heart surgeon will probably be 30-plus before they ever touch a heart. And so, it's just so interesting to me that we're elevating people into positions of authority and organizational life. And you saw it throughout your career, where, in academia, we take the English professor and make them the university president. And now they are in a leadership role, and it's a totally new skill set and knowledge base that's required of these individuals. It's fascinating what we're doing. It's like looking at me and saying, “Why don't you go do phlebotomy, Scott. You know a lot about leadership.” I'll hurt people. I will injure people. And I think, at times, how we're currently set up, we're damaging culture. If you look at the Gallup numbers, and 70% of how I experience the organization is my direct supervisor, or two-thirds of individuals are actively disengaged at work. We're putting hopefully well-intended people into positions of authority and asking them now to take on this whole new skills, body of knowledge, and skill sets that they were never trained for. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Am I?

 

Barbara Kellerman  12:53 

You're echoing something that you've seen now in your new life. You're not academic life. You see it, I'm sure, all the time. I gave a TEDx talk recently to a group of medical professionals, and they complained about exactly what you're just saying, which is, speaking of surgeons, you can be a great surgeon, but if you're then, so to speak, promoted to be chair of the surgery department, that involves a whole set of managerial skills where it is somehow assumed that because you're an outstanding surgeon, you can also be, overnight, an outstanding manager of a large and important department. But that's because we, members of the leadership industry, haven't made clear, haven't ourselves gotten our act together. So, again, if you look at professions such as medicine and law and engineering and teaching, I'm going to go back to your word, Scott, which I think is perfect, they have developed a scaffolding. You can't cut into a human body until you've studied anatomy. Guess what? I need to know anatomy before I actually stick a scalpel into somebody, and we don't demand that at all. In the book that I mentioned earlier, ‘Professionalizing Leadership,’ the scaffolding that I developed, and it is very much that because, at the bottom, the way I have it, and again, this is just analogous to learning how to be a physician or a lawyer or any of the other professions, first, you get an education. You are taught intellectually to understand that profession of which you hope to become proficient, or indeed, a master, a mistress. Maybe you can't say master anymore. So, education is at the bottom, meaning first. Training, the skill set necessary for your particular profession. The practice part comes next. And the third part, maybe the top of your scaffolding, I call, again these words are fungible, but I call development. Education, training, and development. What do I mean by development? That to which I earlier alluded, which is simply lifelong learning, which really ought to be built either into the program or into the profession or both, so that people understand immediately, “You want to learn how to lead? You can't assume that when you're given your at-the-moment fantasy credential or license, that it's over.” This is a lifelong process which find a way in the military. I single out the American military, which by no means is perfect, but unlike, virtually, every other organization or institution in America, they get, at the academies, at the Naval Academy at West Point, you take leadership courses. And you're not a leader when you're an undergraduate at West Point, you are learning intellectually about leadership. And then you practice it, you train for it in your younger years, and then you develop yourself as a leader consciously and deliberately, virtually, lifelong.

 

Scott Allen  15:57 

Yes. And I think something in there that also, at least, for me, connects and resonates is that word ‘development.’ You could look at it through a Torbert lens or a Keegan lens, but are we also building the habits of mind? Whether that's critical reflection, mindfulness. We could go down a list of different terms, but are we increasing the individual's cognitive complexity as well, and maturity, so that by the time they're in these positions of authority, there is a level of maturity? But again, that takes a lot of work as well. From a design standpoint, are you designing some of the learning in a way that, not only… I know that Keegan does not like this phrasing, but you have vertical development and horizontal development. But are we elevating the person's cognitive complexity as well throughout that experience, so that, by the time they have that position of authority, they aren't working out of a base level perception of the world? Because that's bad. That's not good.

 

Barbara Kellerman  16:59 

I think, Scott, and I'd be interested in your take on this. I think the leadership industry has focused on mindfulness and authenticity and self-awareness. And a lot of kind of feeling stuff. I think it has paid, and that makes people feel good in the moment. I'm not sure how much it carries over. And I also don't think, as you can hear from my, again, I'm going to steal this word, the scaffolding where I said education comes first. I think mindfulness, and self-awareness, and authenticity, and all that stuff is great, but I think it needs to be built on a foundation where you have some clue as to what leadership is all about. For example, as you very well know, and maybe some of your listeners do too, I always talk about followers, and most of us, most leadership courses, they are not about followers. They are so focused on the self, so focused on the leader, that they leave out the part that, guess what? Leadership is a relationship. To be a leader, you need at least one follower. And what does that say that word ‘follower’ is, first of all, it's a complicated word, we're not going to go into that now. But the point is that when something is so focused on the self and self-improvement, it is natural to lose sight of the other. That is just not a good idea in this day and age, especially in this day and age when the change in culture and the change in technologies have made followers, meaning others, a far noisier, more obstreperous group to manage than they have ever been before in human history. So, to talk about leadership, we're now talking about followership, is another thing that, to me, makes very little sense. 

 

Scott Allen  18:53 

Yeah. And I was, literally, having a conversation recently with a gentleman who does talent development and Intuit. So, he's in Palo Alto and has worked at Tesla, has worked at Microsoft. Very, very interesting conversation we had. This kind of is an offshoot of what you just said about leader, follower, leadership being elevated and centered. He went to Cornell. His PhD was on Avolio and Bass's work. So he was talking about the full range leadership model. He said we tend to skip over the contingent reward management by exception, the blocking and tackling of delegating, accountability, getting work done, driving work forward, and going straight to the four Is of transformational leadership, the sexy part. But he said we're spending a lot of time helping our leaders understand some of the base-level management tasks that need to happen. So, we also center leadership over some of the foundational skills that an individual is going to need to know to be successful in their role. Does that make sense? Do you agree?

 

Barbara Kellerman  19:53 

Makes a lot of sense. Look at leaders in different industries and leaders in different sectors. Leaders in religion. As we're speaking, we're speaking in the middle of March 2025. Leaders in higher education are a good example because they have been so overwhelmed in the last few years, partly because of the change in culture, change in technology, partly because of October 7th, partly now because of the Trump administration. They are caught in so many different prevailing winds. And because they were kind of out of touch with their various constituencies before any of this happened, they exist. There are leaders of colleges and universities who navigated this terrain very well, but to say the obvious, the Ivy League leaders have generally not been among them. And before this conversation, Scott, I was reading about the interim president of Columbia University. She is caught now, really, in an impossible series of headwinds, whether it's from the Trump administration, or whether her own faculty, where there's a virtually a civil war taking place, where students are intimidated, dare they even speak up without worrying if they are on a green card or something about being arrested. It’s an impossibly difficult task, and leaders like these have simply not been trained, educated, sensitized, taught to understand, and I'm now going to go to the third part of the triad, which is the context within which they're operating. And this context didn't start on October 7th, nor with the Trump administration. It goes back years when their students and faculty and parents and boards and alums were starting to get a voice that made leading on a university campus increasingly difficult and a different skill set was required to deal with a whole set of constituents, a whole set of followers that were clamoring to be heard in new and different ways. 

 

Scott Allen  22:04 

Yeah. So, if I'm going to try and begin to summarize some of the terrain that we've covered, please add in where I falter here. We have a message out there in the ether that leadership development can be quick and easy. If I'm trying to sell you a product, “You can take this assessment, we can refit, we can go ahead, and we're going to make you a better leader. Come to this session.” So, it can be quick and easy. And think of the diet industry in that instance. It's sad, and I don't want to be associated with that type of thing, but there's that messaging that can occur. 

 

Barbara Kellerman  22:40 

Very American messaging, by the way. Easy, easy. “We’ve got a solution for you, pop this pill, drink this elixir, and you too will get healthy.”

 

Scott Allen  22:49 

“You'll be a leader.” We should invent that, Barbara. I don't know what we would call it. (Laughs)

 

Barbara Kellerman  22:53 

We’d be rich. I love it. I love it. 

 

Scott Allen  22:57 

So, that's a challenge, and the dollar, and capitalism and that whole kind of context within which we exist. And we also struggle a little bit with how a shared language, perceiving ourselves as a profession, having continuing education, putting people into positions of authority who are not prepared to do the work they are now being asked to do. And we've not scaffolded that body of knowledge in a way. And, again, sometimes I'm in courses with juniors in college and we're talking about complexity theory. That might be fine, but is that the appropriate… Have we done the scaffolding before that to really get to this point? That's an interesting question. And do we have any sense of how that scaffolding works? And I think another challenge here is time. And, in organizational life, you have a lot of professionals that are time-starved, or you have individuals that may not be able to give the time. If we think about the time it takes to create a pilot or a surgeon, then we may not have that. So, that's a natural headwind that we're facing. Time resources for that faculty member to truly be elevated to a president who's ready and has the political skill and the contextual awareness to really navigate that situation at Columbia with a certain sense of grace, that's difficult too. What else am I missing here?

 

Barbara Kellerman  24:19 

Well, just one friendly amendment. I agree with everything you said, Scott, but it's a continuum. There's what we have, there's the ideal, to which I earlier referred. Ideally, I'd like to have a four-year program, two years of the undergraduate level, two years of the graduate level. But I don't think there's any reason that existing leadership programs can't replicate more closely the professional model. So, let's say you had a year-long program, or let's say it was a week, let's say it was a five-day executive program, there is nothing to stop someone who is running such a program from clarifying to participants that it is about education, it is about training, and it is about development. So, day one, hypothetically, could be dedicated to some kind of model of, “Let's spend a little time on Machiavelli. Let's spend a little bit of time on Max Weber. Let's spend a little bit of time on Peter Drucker. On some of the great thinkers about leadership and followership and power and authority and influence. Let's learn about Stanley Milgram’s experiment of obedience to authority.” There is no reason some of that can’t be done on day one. Day two and day three, if you wish to allocate it that way, can be about the training, about the skill set that is required for this particular program. And day four and five, or whatever it is, can be allocated to the idea that leadership is learning how to lead, is learning lifelong. Is giving some understanding how because… Let's take an obvious example of changes in technology. If you learned how to lead 10 years ago before the advent of social media, or you're learning how to lead in 2025 before artificial intelligence changes the workplace, you're going to need some kind of buffers. You're going to need some kind of continuing training. Because the context is changing all the time, it will not suffice for you to learn leadership in 2025 and then not learn it in 2035. There is no reason a five-day program, a one-day program can't be designed according to this. Again, I'm going to steal your word, the scaffolding that you indicate, and the model that I indicate, which is not my model, but is the standard professional model. It won't fully educate, and if we do it in a week, it doesn't fully educate, doesn't fully train, doesn't fully develop, but it gives people and participants in such a program the idea that you must understand this intellectually. It's not enough to understand it viscerally. You must have a certain skill set that is suitable for your job, to go back to your surgeon who's promoted and doesn't know what the hell to do when it comes to leadership and management. And then, finally, inculcate the idea that leadership, and indeed, build it into the program, even if it's only one day a year. Have a program, five days now, “You're going to come back for refresher conversations and learning in 2026, even if it's just for a day.” So, the ideal doesn't have to be realized in order for the principles of professionalizing leadership to be inculcated in those who are serious about learning it. 

 

Scott Allen  27:50 

Yeah. And thank you for that, because I think my mind can anchor on that, like, okay, this is how it should be done. And you're suggesting we can make subtle shifts now that help live into that, and I think that's super helpful. And I think there's this other thing too, of, like, we tend to center the leader and not the followers in the context, your system. We tend to center leadership and not management. We tend to center positive forms of leadership, and as you've written about and been kicking and screaming and dragging us into conversations, you mentioned Machiavelli, we need to understand the continuum of different approaches that are used to get the work done. I think, as an industry, we can be very, very, very bent towards dandelions, chocolate bars, and warm fuzzies, versus the real blocking and tackling and some of the violence. I know you've written about violence in recent times on your blog. There's a continuum here of how things have been done throughout world history, some of which are horrible to think about, but we have to be aware of them, know of them. And if we don't, we might be vulnerable. 

 

Barbara Kellerman  29:01 

It's about recognizing the world for what it really is, as opposed to what it ideally is sold to be. And much of the leadership industry is in this perfect universe without serious attention to malevolence, ineptitude, etc., etc., but we have only to know what's happening in the world today, and I'm not talking about domestically or internationally or in business or in politics, but there's a lot of bad stuff going on out there. And to make believe that it is not and to not address it, at least, tangentially, strikes me as a mistake, especially for people who really want to lead others and manage others, and presumably, make the world a better place. 

 

Scott Allen  29:43 

Yeah. Well, Barbara, I am so thankful for your mind and your wisdom and… 

 

Barbara Kellerman  29:48 

Me too, actually. So, that makes two of us. I hate to be mindless. I hate to be without my mind.

 

Scott Allen  29:53 

(Laughs) Oh, and that'd be good. No, we don't want a Barbara that is mindless. No, we want... 

 

Barbara Kellerman  30:18 

Exactly. Exactly.

 

Scott Allen  30:00  

Barbara's mindful present. I always love our conversations. And, as we begin to wind down our time, I always ask what you've been listening to or reading or what's caught your attention in recent times that listeners might be interested in. It could have something to do with what we've just discussed, it may have nothing to do with what we've just discussed.

 

Barbara Kellerman  30:18 

This has nothing to do… At the most obvious level, what I'm going to mention has nothing to do with what we just discussed. But I love going to the movies. I'm a big moviegoer, and I actually like going to the movies. Here's how old I am. I like going to the movies outside my living room in a darkened theater. I saw a movie a couple of months ago, and I came out and I said, “I think this is a really good film. I might want to see it again,” which I virtually never do. But a few days ago, I saw it again. And it is about leadership and followership, but it is also about love, and sex, and so much more. I'm saying nothing novel because it just won the Oscar for the best film of the year. It is ‘Anora,’ but is so idiosyncratic and so creative. The guy who wrote it and directed it and was responsible for it in every possible way, a guy named Sean Baker, keep your eyes on him. If he is not a leader in the arts, I do not know who is. I commend him to you as a leader in the arts. I commend the film to you as a fabulous mix of farce and tragedy. It's not easily replicated, so thanks for giving me. By the way, I have not invested in ‘Anora.’ I have nothing to gain from this except to try to get you to see it. It's just a terrific movie, if possible, again in a darkened theater, if need be, online. 

 

Scott Allen  31:42 

Oh, well, I'm excited because you've intrigued me now. I haven't seen it. I haven't seen, really, many of the films that were nominated. ‘A real pain.’ I did see that with Kieran Culkin, and he did a very nice job. That was a good film. But ‘Anora.’ Okay, I'll put that in the show notes.

 

Barbara Kellerman  31:58 

‘Anora.’ ‘Anora.’ ‘Anora.’ Thank you so much, Scott. As always, great to talk to you. I love your new... I don't know how many of you know what Scott looks like, but he's more hirsute than he used to be. Devastatingly handsome. Lovely to talk to you, Scott.

 

Scott Allen  32:15 

(Laughs) Barbara, love talking with you because you always use two or three words. I don't know what they mean, but I need to go look them up. So I'm excited.

 

Barbara Kellerman  32:21 

H-I-R-U-T-E. Means hairy, if you must know. 

 

Scott Allen  32:36  

(Laughs)

 

Barbara Kellerman  32:27 

Take care. Scott. Thank you so much for the conversation. Bye. 

 

Scott Allen  32:30

Bye-bye.

 

 

[End Of Recording]