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

Leader and Followers of The Year: Power & Pushback with Dr. Barbara Kellerman

• Scott J. Allen • Season 1 • Episode 318

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 37:16

Send 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

  • “He is an inveterate bad boy who is not content unless he is stirring the pot.”
  • “Follower is the only antonym of leader we have. And sometimes followers become leaders.”
  • “The importance of context is as real in politics as it is in organizational life.”

Resources Mentioned in This Episode 

About The International Leadership Association (ILA)

  • The ILA was created in 1999 to bring together professionals interested in studying, practicing, and teaching leadership. 

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.



 

SPEAKER_01

Okay, everybody. Welcome to Practical Wisdom for Leaders. Thank you so much for joining us. Today I have a repeat guest. She is always so much fun to have a conversation with, and just an incredible scholar, incredible thinker. And I have Barbara Kellerman, Dr. Barbara Kellerman. And each year, at least for the last couple years, we've talked about the leaders and the followers of the year. And Barbara has a wonderful blog. And I'm going to go ahead and put a link to that in the show notes so that you can access that. Of course, she's written a number of different books on followership and bad leadership. So, Barbara, a happy new year and thank you for coming back. Let's learn a little bit about your leader and followers of the year. What are you thinking about? What's on your radar?

SPEAKER_00

As you may remember, Scott, yes, I do have a blog. I've been had I've had one for quite a number of years. And every year, toward the end of the year, I choose a leader of the year and a follower of the year, or may sometimes it's plural. This year it was plural in terms of followers, which maybe we'll get to in this conversation. But it was single in terms of a leader. And I wish I could claim originality. I wish I could be novel or clever. Instead, I find myself exceedingly tedious in who I chose as leader of the year. I'm boring myself, but what can I tell you?

SPEAKER_01

I'm curious. I'm in suspense. You do such a great job of defining leader and how you're defining followers. So maybe do that and then we'll do a drum roll and you can.

Impact Over Ethics As The Metric

Naming Trump And The Three Traits

SPEAKER_00

I will do that. So when people normally say the person of the year, Time magazine had the what used to be called for many years the man of the year, then they became a little more politically correct. And it's the person of the year. I think the Financial Times now has a person of the year. I have a leader of the year, and to your point, Scott, I will define the way I choose my leader of the year. It is certainly not on the basis of how effective or ethical. It is only, and it this goes to my interest, which you fleetingly alluded to, my interest in bad leadership. It is which leader has had the greatest impact in the year 2025. And again, tediously, I could come up with only one name because his impact was not only it was in the realm of politics, obviously, and I'm sure every listener now knows who I'm talking about, but it was in the realm of domestic politics and global politics. So I had no choice this year but to choose President Donald Trump. And that's indeed who I chose. The blog itself emphasizes three. There's so much to say about him. He is such a large figure, literally and figuratively, that there's so much ink, so to speak, has been spilled about this man. So in my case, I just chose to emphasize three, I would say, not so much traits as characteristics of his that I think make clear why he is my leader of the year.

SPEAKER_01

So will you give us a little bit of a taste of those three?

SPEAKER_00

Sure. I love language and I always try to be alliterative. I frequently do that in my writing, as some people may know. So the three are transgression and aggression and expansion or expansionism.

SPEAKER_01

Okay.

Transgression As A Political Tool

Aggression, Retribution, And Force

Militarization And Domestic Escalation

SPEAKER_00

So just a few words about each. Again, this is again it's impossible to get away from this man, but I tried to make a case as to why those three were worth characteristics were worth singling out. And I tried to make a case as to why his impact make is just incalculable. Although, as I say at the very end of the blog, and I think this is important for your listeners to remember, we don't yet know, and only the boring phrase time will tell, whether the impact he has had will be enduring. This is, after all, last time looked still a democracy. It is possible that if we have and notice, if with a capital, if we have free and fair elections, that there will be a change in November 2026 and a significant change in November 2028. But we can't, we can't yet know. There's so much to be said about it. I'm not gonna go into it all. I'm just saying it's not 100% clear whether it's one thing to have an impact, it's another thing to have an impact that's enduring. So I can't prognosticate the future. I can say that in terms of transgression, aggression, and expansionism, he is singular. So just a few words about each of the three on transgression. I think I certainly have compared him, and I'm sure others have, to an overgrown child, a sort of naughty boy who loves disobeying the rules. By the way, as a young man, as a teenager, he was sent by his, I'm sure, father to military school. So I suppose this is a trait. His siblings were not sent to anything like it. But I have to assume that his father decided that he could benefit from military academy, which I'm not sure that he did. But clearly this issue of his misbehaving and taking pleasure in misbehaving, however that is defined, whatever it means to be a bad boy, and I'm using the word boy deliberately here, in American politics and American culture and the American economy, because the level of corruption is unparalleled, at least in certainly God knows in my lifetime, in the White House. The obvious interest in money and more money, the enormous riches, particularly through cryptocurrency accumulated by the Trump family, the Trump organization. So transgression across the board, whether it's foul language, foul behavior, obviously he's been legally found culpable in various ways. Just a kind of a guy who never fully grew up. He's often described as a narcissist. This is boring because it's been so often said. I see him more as a an inveterate bad boy who is not content unless he is somehow stirring the pot in ways that bring it to overflowing, that drive ordinary people nuts. Although I don't dismiss his base, we don't have to go there. So I would say transgression is one of them. The other, another second is aggression. This is a guy who likes a good fight. He likes to watch fighting. He's known to love boxing. He's loved boxing for a long time. But he can't stop himself from engaging in a fight. He's particularly this issue of retribution, which we heard him say dozens of times during the campaign. He's obviously delivered on it, but he won't let slide even the slightest insult, even the slightest attack on not only him, but uh anything that he touches. He's a pugilist. He's a really he talks about peace a lot. And I take him at his word when he says he is not into blood being spilled in wars, whether in the Middle East or in Europe. So I take him at his word on that. But he himself cannot resist engaging in fights. He just can't stop himself. And he enjoys watching them. He enjoys his underlings engaged in fights. He enjoys fighting himself. So that's aggression. And I will just have a footnote to that. Since I wrote this article, which was a few weeks ago, two things apropos aggression have become clear. One is his use of aggression, use of force in Venezuela, which has obviously been in the news in recent days. And the second, of course, is in the streets of the United States. This is not brand new, but it's been ratcheted up. And we are increasingly seeing the militarization of ICE, sometimes even the National Guard, where this is all going to go as we sit here and talk in the first week of January remains unclear. But again, his he is very happy to use force when and where he deems it necessary. So I think the aggression plays itself out increasingly as well with the American military as broadly defined. And finally, expansionism, I only need utter the word need to utter the word Greenland when it becomes apparent. When we first heard him talk about Canada and Greenland and Mexico, what even Venezuela one could argue is one thing, and even Colombia and maybe even Cuba, but the idea of why don't we just take over Canada? Why don't we just take over Mexico? Oh, Greenland, there it is. Denmark, it doesn't count. This it's hard for us to remember the first time we heard it, but it was maybe not shocking, but very surprising. Our ears were not used to, nor our brains you getting around the idea that the United States would simply take over Canada. So this notion of the more, the greater the sense of my domain, that is expansionism in every aspect. I mentioned money already, territory, you name it, the more, the larger the accumulation of whatever it is. Of course, I'm happy to answer any other questions.

SPEAKER_01

But I was just reminded of your book, Leaders Who Lust. There's some lusts there. If we were to go back to your work in that space, that, yes. And for any listener who is a little bit agitated or hot under the collar, chill out. Barbara will challenge both sides of the aisles, always, whether it's JFK or Bill Clinton. She's an equal opportunity. I think it's interesting that you bring that perspective to the table because it's important. And a longer conversation for us at some time, at some point, is that the kind of the more Machiavellian style is working. That approach, that aggressiveness is working. It's an interesting context that we are in right now to refer back to another piece of your work.

Expansionism And The Greenland Moment

Enduring Impact Or Passing Phase

SPEAKER_00

As time has gone on, uh, particularly in the second Trump presidency, I felt increasingly obligated to say where I'm coming from. I'm a woman. I'm generally speaking a centrist, but I I probably lean slightly more to the left than to the right. But I also now, and in my recent books, I have made my position clear, which is I agree with you that I tend to be able, I usually see things not black or white, but gray. Yep. I have difficulty taking sides on an issue, which sometimes is a virtue but is often a vice. But I think on Donald Trump, I have become clearer. And the only thing I can do on that is to declare freely and openly what my position is. And I am indeed now with many other Americans who are increasingly concerned that too many of our laws, and particularly too many of our norms, I've been interested, Scott, in the debasement of the English language. I am probably the least prudish academic on the planet. But when I heard George Conway, he used the word shit on Morning Joe. And the mayor of Minneapolis just used the word, he was agitated, obviously, about what happened with ICE. And he, but he used the word the F-bomb in public. So the language itself, the coarsening, some of this is not all about Trump. I don't want to make it seem as if he's his impact is that's that that's the only reason why, many reasons why these things are happening. But I would say the lowering of standards of what constitutes reasonably good behavior. For example, in the wake of a tragedy such as just happened in Minneapolis, any other president would have said, we need to be calm, we need to do this, we need to get the facts first. That's not what Trump did, and it's certainly not what his vice president did. This rush to judgment, this, you know, in Freudian language, it's the id over the superego. Whatever the impulse is, it's front and center. There's very little censorship. And part of that takes place in the coarsening of the English language. Again, it's not all about Trump, but it's about, I think anyone would say that we are less, Americans are notably less civil than we were a generation ago. Not only because of Trump. By the way, this is not just, these are not just American issues. These are issues in Western democracies generally. One could have a whole other conversation about the rise of autocracies and the decline of democracies.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. And as you've said in the past, from a systemic level, America in some ways is running some dated software. The operating system is a little bit old. And regardless of your political stance, gerrymandering probably, whether it's liberal or conservative, isn't healthy for a democracy. And this amount of money influencing probably isn't healthy for a democracy.

unknown

Right?

SPEAKER_00

Oh, totally. It's such an important point, Scott. I'm so glad you made it. I keep talking about the importance of our system, that is the American political system, is now exactly as you say, seriously flawed in important ways, independent of any individual.

SPEAKER_01

Yes. Right to bear arms. You hunt? Sure. Great. Do we need military-grade weapons on the streets? Probably not what the founders envisioned. Oh, and so I think there's some things that all Americans can probably agree on. And the system also, just another version of this, is that it tends to elevate the individuals that are less centrist in the primary system. Some of these elements, as the context has shifted, I get a little less concerned about personalities in some cases. My mind just goes to what is from a systemic standpoint. And I know that we could go down that road with you, and you are brilliant on that conversation.

Language, Norms, And Coarsening

SPEAKER_00

So I can't help myself, but I have to ask you. We agree one could point to five serious flaws in the American political system, the context, independent of any individual. Do you, however, see the slightest chance that these things are going to be changed in your lifetime? The Electoral College, we're going to be able to do away with that. Are we going to be able to do away with lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, which was great when people died at 60, but not so great when they die at 90? Do you think that's those things are amenable to change?

SPEAKER_01

I think it's going to be really hard. I think it's going to be very difficult. I think just go to finances. It's very I've been thinking about this, Barbara, and this is taking us in a little bit of a different direction, but let's go for a second at least. I have an image in my head of a building somewhere in an average city, and the name is not on the building IBM or Google, it's Division. And Division has become such a multi-billion, probably worldwide trillion dollar industry keeping us divided. Left wing media, right wing media, what I don't care, late night comedy hosts, conservative talk show, doesn't matter. Both sides keeping us divided, agitated, frustrated, angry, curious, worried, anxious, it's big business. And things like that, I don't know how we decouple the financial incentives that are driving some of this, that are fueling, like putting fuel on the fire. I don't know how we shift from that. I don't have that answer. But I do know that it's really good business to keep us divided, to keep us agitated, to keep us angry. It's incredible. It's the media outlets have figured it out.

SPEAKER_00

This is about changes in culture twinned with changes in technology. That's a formidable combination. I first wrote about that in a book called The End of Leadership that came out more than 10 years ago. And it still holds true. I think those two changes, culture and technology, explain a thousand things, a million things, including the point that you just made. Very important. People have a financial stake in keeping us divided as opposed to trying to bring us together. I think that's true.

SPEAKER_01

And liberal media has made billions of dollars on Donald Trump. And conservative media, billions of dollars.

SPEAKER_00

Absolutely. And he remains after the election viewership of TV went down because he remains such a compelling figure. And I will include myself in that. When I see him on television, I actually will often stop. And it's a kind of a he isn't the he's been described as the entertainer in chief, and there's something to that. He is curiously compelling, even for those of us who are not exactly fond of him.

Systemic Flaws Beyond Personalities

SPEAKER_01

And again, I think for listeners, let's think about the systemic level, whether that's either side of the aisle. Again, I don't know how we solve for gerrymandering, how we solve for Supreme Court justices until they're 90. But I think if at least if we start to understand that some of what's elevating some of this, I think it's important to be aware of. Okay, followers of the year. Followers of the year. What do you think?

Media Economics And Monetized Division

SPEAKER_00

Okay, so this time, as I said at the beginning, Scott, I coupled my leader of the year with followers of the year. These are names that I think will be much less well known to any audience, including your own. So I decided since we have such an impactful leader in Donald Trump, let's look at the resistance to Donald Trump. Who are those people who are inevitably followers of his, because they're Americans. In one case, they were Americans, but they are leaders of the resistance. Now, to your earlier point, Scott, so much of the word follower. Leader, people as you well know, there are hundreds of different different definitions of the word leader. Follower is worse because people automatically assume that followers follow. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes people who do not have power, who do not have authority, who do not have influence, they decide nevertheless, for all their powerlessness, they decide nevertheless to resist. Now, if these resistors catch on, and if they themselves get a following, then you can say that these followers become metamorphosed, transform into leaders. I'll give you two examples. One is a man by the name of Mahatma Gandhi, who in India came from no place. He was in South Africa when he started this crusade. And he was originally a follower at the Crusade for Indian independence, originally just a guy, a lawyer, who then became leader of a movement. So he's an example, an extreme example, but nevertheless telling one, of someone who went from being a follower to being a leader. A better known example in this country is someone, again, very obvious, Martin Luther King. He was an ordinary preacher man to begin with, a student, a young fellow who happened to be extremely articulate, extremely persuasive, and he came along at the right time. Started as a follower, as an ordinary individual who, over a period of years metamorphosed into, became a leader. So the language is problematic, but I've never found any word that is the antonym of leader other than the word follower. So I continue to use it, although I carefully define it.

SPEAKER_01

Yep.

Culture Plus Technology As Drivers

Defining Followers And Resistance

SPEAKER_00

So my I have four followers of the year. Two of them are what James McGregor Burns, who is one of the gurus of leadership studies, now has passed. But in his seminal volume called Leadership, he talked about something or a phenomenon that he called intellectual leaders. That is, people who didn't go out in the streets, they didn't run for office, but they came up with ideas that were so novel and so clever and so resonant that the ideas entered, so to speak, the public realm. For example, the founders. Burns was a great admirer of people like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, whose language, Thomas Paine, whose language persuaded people to whose ideas, whose language persuaded other people to go along. So the two intellectual leaders that I settled on for the Trump resistance, ordinary Americans, except they're exceptionally skilled with the English language. One is a woman by the name of Anne Appelbaum, who is a writer for The Atlantic. And she wrote a book called The Twilight of Democracy in 1920, 20, excuse me, 2020, 2021, which was a harbinger, a kind of predictor of what we are seeing in the United States today, particularly again, her field is autocracy, and she warned about what might happen in the United States. And her companion, even more prescient than she, a man by the name of Timothy Snyder, historian, who was at Yale University for many years, who moved recently to the University of Toronto, in other words, left the country. He says for personal reasons, but he was also militantly anti-Trump. He wrote a book, a pamphlet, really, in 2017, titled Tyranny, that became an astonishing, remarkable bestseller, where he, I think it was subtitled 20 Lessons from the 20th Century. And these were kind of predictors. It's a, again, amazingly a bestseller, this little thing, but he warned also at the time against Trump. So I think both these people and Applebaum and Timothy Snyder could very fairly be described as people who had no power in any obvious sense of the word. No, they were authoritative, you can say, because they had reputations. So people did pay attention to them, but they certainly weren't leaders of any particular political movement. They were, in the broadest sense, powerless, but their ideas were so forceful that they were able to make themselves heard. And second group of two are names that are curiously, I think, very obscure, followers in every sense of the word, young people, nobody ever heard of them. They are founders and leaders of a group called Indivisible. One is a woman by the name of Leah Greenberg, and the man's name is Ezra Levin. And they founded this group, Indivisible, which, along with other similar groups, but I would argue maybe more than others, spearheaded No King's Day. Now, No King's Day was able to muster 5 million people in their protests in June, and it was able to muster 7.5 million people in its protests in October. The 7.5 million number out of no place is now deemed one of the largest protests in American history, maybe matched only by the protests in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. So these people came out of nowhere, no power, no authority, no influence, neither Leah Greenberg nor Ezra Levin, but they somehow, out of thin air, one could even argue, were able to do something important, which was or arguably even very important, which was to establish a popular resistance. We don't know what's going to happen to Indivisible or No King's Day in 2026, but surely in 2025 it was able to leave an imprint.

Intellectual Leaders Of The Resistance

SPEAKER_01

Interesting. In the case of Indivisible, was it is it the what do you think? Is it the marketing? Is it the No Kings Day marketing that was resonated with seven and a half million people? What how do you make sense of that? What do you think?

SPEAKER_00

Scott. I don't I first of all I do think it's a good name, No Kings Day. My the only answer I can come up with, and I'm not saying it's the right answer, it's probably one of the right answers, is that I think just as we have spent time talking about the advent of Trump and people nervous about what he represents and nervous about an America that seems to them to be changing too much too fast, I think people have been waiting. How often have we all heard that the Democrats, the Democratic leadership, Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Hakeem Jeffries in the House is somewhat hapless and feckless? Why is it that Zoran Mamdani has been able to make such a dent so far? We don't know what his mayoralty of New York City is going to be, but his success, electoral success out of nowhere, was absolutely remarkable. People, I think the opposition, broadly defined to Donald Trump and his presidency, is out there looking for something to hang their hats on. Some organization, some individual, some, if you should pardon the word, leader, who will take them, if not to the promised land, lead them out of what they perceive as the wilderness. And the Democrats, the mainstream Democrats, have so far, this could change tomorrow morning, failed at this most important task.

SPEAKER_01

Say more about that, real quick.

SPEAKER_00

I hate to keep going back to the word leader because I keep talking about the leadership system. The leader is important, yes, but so are the followers and so is the context. But people, it we follow. We look for people to take us to a place that is better than where we are now. Whether that's the affordability crisis, whether it's concern over the decline of democracy, whatever your anxiety and concerns are, again, housing, health insurance, these are bread and butter issues. Who's gonna help me with this? New Yorkers apparently thought in very large numbers that Mandami was a better risk than Andrew Cuomo, who he was running against. Again, out of nowhere. I think his initial rating, people didn't even know his name in the beginning of 2025. I think he had a 4% approval rating. And he wins handily. Why? Because people are looking. New Yorkers were looking for a leader to lead them to a place where they could afford either to buy a small apartment or to at least to rent one. And I would say the same on a national level. There's we know there's a lot of opposition to Trump. We know that. But it needs to be somehow harnessed, organized. Hence, I think the astonishing success of No King's Day. At least it was a vehicle for some people to show up, if only to march for a couple of hours or walk down a street and carry some banner that made clear their political opposition.

Grassroots Power: Indivisible And No Kings Day

SPEAKER_01

My mind keeps going back to regardless of your political affiliation, large percentages of us could agree on things that are fundamental to what we are founded upon as a country. And when Bill Clinton does what he does in the Oval Office, when JFK behaves like he behaved in the pool, press pool area, I think those are not emblematic of behaviors we would value. And how do we communicate in a way? And the challenge here is this: how do you monetize the middle? How do you monetize those values? How do you energize and capitalize upon those values that so many of us can agree on? People don't want machine guns in the streets. No one's saying, hey, that's a great idea for that to be a thing. And no one's saying that we want people unfeathered just crossing borders. But how do we agree on those elements that are civil discourse? Yeah, we can probably all agree on that. And civility, we can probably all agree on that. It's such an interesting context right now. It's such an interesting context. And I just really appreciate your time, Barbara.

SPEAKER_00

So I just want a friendly amendment to something you said, Scott.

SPEAKER_01

Sure.

Why The Message Caught Fire

SPEAKER_00

You mentioned Clinton and Kennedy in the same breath, effectively. So this is an incredibly important point. Otherwise, I wouldn't stop at it. I mentioned earlier the importance of the changing technologies and the changing culture. So when we now know that Kennedy was very much a womanizer, we now know that. We did not, however, know it at the time. We found it out years later because at that time there was a kind of code of secrecy. It was considered impolitic, improper, impolite to violate that code of secrecy. So we had no idea contemporaneously what Kennedy was up to with regards specifically to his inveterate womanizing. Interestingly, right around the time that you mentioned, that is the Monica Lewinsky Bill Clinton, the culture was changing in ways we had already changed. We can talk about why on another occasion, had already changed, so that the press at that point had not only no compunction about revealing the affair, but revealing, if I may say so, the details of the affair. The semen on the blue gap dress. Can you imagine that in the time of Kennedy? Inconceivable. So that was in 1960, Kennedy, of course, was in the early 1960s. The Lewinsky year, it was went on for a year, 11 months, 1998. 30 or 35 years later, the American culture had changed and technology was getting more sophisticated, so people knew more. But I would say that change is more cultural. It was considered our right, if you will, to know exactly what Bill Clinton did and what Bill Clinton did not do, so far as Monica Lewinsky is concerned. And that was in a very important marker of the changing American culture. By finding out everything that Clinton did, we brought him down to our own level. And the president in one fell swoop was demeaned, and the presidency itself diminished.

SPEAKER_01

And I think one contextual shift was that we had 24 hours of news to fill.

SPEAKER_00

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01

Barbara, I'm so thankful for you. And I'm changed it up a little bit by ending the podcast by just saying what is the practical wisdom in what we've just discussed? As you think about our conversation, what's the practical wisdom for listeners?

Hunger For New Leadership

SPEAKER_00

People will draw different conclusions because we have different values, we have different opinions, we have different beliefs. My emphasis on followership is a reminder that we don't have to accept everything that we are told to do. We I'm coming out with a new book next fall. It's all about why most of the time we follow, most of the time we obey, most of the time we comply. But some of the time we do not. I would say the practical wisdom, whether in the workplace or in the body politic or in the home or in the community, again, for very many good reasons, most of the time we go along with people in positions of authority. But we when we see something that we don't like or we think is wrong, we often, it's not easy, by the way. I don't mean to make it sound easy, but we don't have to always comply. We can from time to time resist.

SPEAKER_01

Okay. Thank you. We will talk later in the year when that new book comes out. I hope if you come on.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Scott. Happy New Year and happy new year to everyone and anyone who is listening.

SPEAKER_01

Be well.