EP02 - Conflict Resolution

Hello everybody and welcome to Out of the Office, a podcast exploring the lessons we can learn from the hit TV show, "The US Office" and learning from it on how we can create a more diverse and inclusive workplace. Join me, Sara Chandran, founder of Fresh and Fearless as your host, as we delve into the world of Dunder Mifflin to examine the different characters, scenarios and situations that unfold throughout the series. Each guest that I invite to speak with me will help me analyze the show and unpack what the episodes show us about what not to do about creating a workplace filled with respect, inclusivity and positivity. Now, whether you're a fan of the US Office or just interested in learning more about creating a more inclusive workplace, this podcast is for you. So grab your favorite Dundee Award and let's get started. For this particular episode, we'll be looking at conflict resolution from season two, episode 21. And in this episode, Michael Scott, the regional manager of the Scranton office resolves a conflict between Oscar Martinez and Angela Martin. But then as a result, discovers an entire file filled with other unresolved complaints between other staff members. Michael Scott is then determined to try and resolve them. But in true Michael Scott fashion, his attempts to fix anything actually makes matters worse. So he starts to unearth all these old tensions, all these old complaints between staff members and in fact creates new ones between the office employees. So it's a pretty dire situation by the end of the episode. So I'm excited and looking forward to what we discuss around this particular episode. Now we have the wonderful Sylvia to talk us through this particular episode, conflict resolution. Hi Sylvia, welcome to the podcast.

Hi everyone, hi Sarah, thank you for having me. - No, you're so welcome. - How are you? - I'm so excited, yeah, I'm really good. You are my second guest on the show and yeah, I'm just enjoying it to be honest, talking about it. But for all our listeners who might not know who you are, can you give us a little introduction to yourself? - Yeah, so I'm Sylvia, I'm a business psychologist. That means that I look after employee wellbeing in different organizations. And I've been doing this for quite a while now, I'm doing my PhD in it, but one of my main areas of passion in diversity and inclusion is psychological safety. And I think that in this episode that we're going to discuss today, we'll see the importance of psychological safety and psychological standing. And I'm really excited to talk to you about these two concepts.

Me and Sylvia, we actually used to live together as a bit of, I'm just giving a bit of a big background of who we are and how we know each other. And whenever we just like procrastinate from work, not that we do that very often, (laughing) we would stick the TV on and we'd often watch the office episodes. So we're both big fans and find it cringe worthy, but equally fascinating and hilarious. - I mean, I didn't really have a choice because when I was at your place, it was always the office.

You don't watch anything else.

(laughing) - This is true. - That's the only thing on your TV. - This is true, I'm all set. I mean, I've watched the show about,

five or six times or whatever number, it doesn't make me seem like I'm an off crazy office fan. But yeah, we are watching the show a lot. I'm having a good laugh at it, yeah. - I think when you're like in workplace office and you're in the space of DEI and thinking about psychological safety, it's just like a really interesting case study. It's obviously like a emphasize version of like negative workplace culture, but it is like a real moment to go, this does happen and this makes me think, this is why my wife is so relevant.

And you know what, sometimes when I'm in similar situations, sometimes what goes to my head is to do that little thing when that Jim does, when he just randomly looks at an imaginary camera.

(laughing) - Honestly, I wish I could like, I was good at accents and good at like mimicking people's behaviors because Jim's face when he turns to the camera is like iconic. I just think anytime you see something jingy, (laughing) I just wanna like give that look of like, oh God, really? Is this what's happening right now? - Yeah, I just wanna look somewhere imaginary, kind of like I'm looking into the camera and thinking, yeah, that's awkward. - Yeah, so one question I'm asking all my podcast guests is so in the show, Michael Scott has a mug where it says world's best boss and it's something he actually bought himself, which I just think is very, it's not actually been gifted that, so if you had a world's best something mug, what would yours say?

World's best mind ninja, maybe. - Mind ninja, I love that. - Yeah, because images are cool, I'm a psychologist, so maybe world's best mind ninja. - It's interesting for me, waves. - Yeah, yeah, and my birthday's coming a month, so that's what I fully expect to receive from you.

(laughing) - One month that says world's best, well, mind ninja. - World's, yes. - It's gonna be really difficult to find that, I'm gonna have to get it personalized. - I have, definitely. - So, obviously we're talking about conflict resolution and you're an expert and very brainy about all things psychological safety and psychological standing, which two phrases

some of our listeners may be unfamiliar with, so I thought it'd be good before we dive into the behaviors of the show, if you kind of just give us an idea of what they mean and what actually looks like in the workplace. - Yeah, so psychological safety, firstly, is one of those kind of, I don't know if you've noticed, kind of that trendy phrase that you've been hearing more and more about it in the last few years and it's similar to unconscious bias, for example, so you keep hearing psychological safety and unconscious bias, but really, it's very simple. It's just about feeling safe to take a risk or to speak up or feeling safe to disagree or talk about your concerns without the fear of negative repercussions at work. That's what psychological safety is. And it could be a simple example, could be, do you feel safe to disagree with your manager? Do you feel safe to challenge a colleague knowing that there are no negative repercussions? Do you feel safe to challenge and therefore increase creativity? So, yeah, this is what psychological safety is all about. And what's interesting about it is that we're all so familiar with physical threat

and the parts of the brain, or we have parts of the brain that respond to physical threat, but what's interesting is that when we're under threat psychologically, the same areas of the brain respond to that. So our brain doesn't differentiate between psychological pain and physical pain. So it causes a lot of negative physiological responses such as increased cortisol, which is a stress hormone, increased heart rate, increased heartbeat, increased blood pressure.

So the problem with this is that on a short term, there's no issues. If you feel psychologically threatened, but long term, this can cause an issue. And I've done studies myself in my PhD that show that a prolonged exposure to an environment where you don't have psychological safety can lead to early onset of things such as cardiovascular diseases. So it's a really important thing to have. Now, on the other hand, psychological standing is something that people don't talk about that much. And it's a different concept, slightly different. It's about going beyond psychological safety.

Whether or not you feel that you'll be taking seriously when you make a contribution. So it's about whether you think that you'll be valued or that you're even entitled to speak up and act. For example, if I were to say something in a meeting, am I recognized for what I bring to the table? Are my strengths highlighted publicly, for example? Am I being thanked for my contributions? Things like that. So psychological standing goes a step beyond psychological safety. And what's interesting, and I want to raise here, is the fact that psychological standing firstly is individual. So it can change from one meeting to another.

You haven't changed, but the dynamic of the meeting has changed. So your sense of psychological standing can change from one place to another. But what's interesting is that you can also have one without the other. So you can have psychological safety and not have psychological standing. And you can have psychological standing without having psychological safety. But obviously you want to have both in a healthy work environment.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I mean, my mind is blown. Just hearing you talk about it, you're just such an expert. I mean, if you're studying it and writing about it and researching it, obviously it's everything that you know and breathe. And it's just so interesting because I think that's something that a lot of workplaces struggle with in terms of psychological safety and psychological standing. And as you were talking about, like onset cardiovascular disease, the first person that came to mind was...

Who's the one that leads? - Stanley.

(both laughing) As soon as you said that, I was like, Stanley is literally this character because he's obviously not got an environment where he feels safe. I mean, the amount of microaggressions, like racial microaggressions that he goes through and just the workplace itself with Michael Scott, like, you know, he's often like doing his crossword in the meetings and stuff. Obviously without that psychological safety, you know, we're spending so much of our time at work that obviously that stuff is gonna impact your physical health. And we see that in Stanley and then there's that episode, I know we're not talking about that episode, but I'm gonna talk about it anyway, where he has that monitor, the blood pressure monitor. Every time Michael Scott walks closer and closer to him, it's like beeping through the roof.

And if that isn't like a visual like clue of what psychological safety can be and not be in the workplace, I think that really is it.

And that's a very good point, you know, since you brought that episode out, because that exactly, as you said, that shows that the mental state, because Stanley was not in any physical danger, but his brain was reacting in a way that his heart was going crazy just when Michael was close to him. - Yeah. - So that just shows that we have these physiological reactions when we lack psychological safety or psychological standing or just wellbeing or trust at work.

And I think that that was very well represented in that scene. - Yeah, 100%. So let's take it back to conflict resolution and everything that kind of falls apart in that particular episode. So obviously starts with Oscar being very upset with Angela and this picture that she wants to have up on her desk. And they're both just like really kind of arguing in this meeting room. And Toby comes out and the clip that we kind of like looked at was that Toby comes out and speaks to Michael and says, you know, I just kind of have a way of like these things end up resolving themselves. I just kind of let them talk it out, vent about it, and then they eventually forget about it and move on. And I'm curious from your perspective, is that what happens, you know, when people raise issues in the workplace and they say, this is a particular problem that I'm having with another colleague, is it okay to just kind of listen to it and then move on and not do anything about it? Is Toby's approach the right one? Or do you think it's not quite? - I wouldn't say Toby's approach is the right one, especially since in the episode he said that I think the best thing to do is just listen because that's a very passive approach, let's be honest. I wouldn't say that it's completely wrong either, because if I remember correctly, and now correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, does he bring Angela and Oscar in the same room to discuss? - Yes. - The conflict, right, so I see, I agree with that part. - I'm not sure he does. I'm trying to think about it.

I think I don't remember. - I think it's just Oscar speaking to Toby, and Oscar's just shouting at Toby. Yeah, it's just Oscar and the time.

Right, okay, see, because in that case, then there's no resolution. There's a conflict, but there's no resolution. It's just very passive. It's like you're talking to, I don't know, just the wall, basically, someone just listens.

So there's not even active listening. So no, I absolutely do not agree with that approach. I thought initially, because I think I'm remembering the episode, I'm misremembering the episode, that he had brought Oscar and Angela into the room to discuss, which would have been very different.

But Toby's approach to just, I don't know, bring Oscar into the room and just let him vent for half an hour, and then that's it. And is it that he writes a formal complaint and then he puts them in boxes or something like that? - Yeah, so what happens in the episode is we see that Toby has these boxes under his desk and he's got these folders in his drawers and filled with complaints that are just literally their complaints on pieces of paper with no resolution.

And Dwight has big issues and lots of complaints about Jim and other character in the show. And Toby has this huge box, it's absolutely massive, where Dwight sends all these complaints to Toby. And Toby has told Dwight, oh, this is going to a special head office place that's gonna be dealt with separately. But actually those pieces of paper and those complaints are just sat under his desk, because Toby's just hoping, I guess, brush it under the carpet and it will just go away, because I think he just hopes that people forget about it. But I'm not sure that people do forget about these things.

People don't forget about them. And a lot of the times, if you put it off or if you delay it, if you delay a resolution for a long time, it becomes too late. It becomes something, I almost like to describe it as a wound, you know, a conflict leaves a wound. And that wound starts to heal, but it can start to heal by leaving a scar or not.

And by delaying the process, you will end up with a scar. That relationship never going to be the same.

There's always going to be something. And it takes a lot of courage. It takes a lot of trust, which are both components of psychological safety and psychological standing. And it takes a lot of active listening from the other person

to be able to have a constructive discussion about a disagreement. Now, what people, the reason why people are often afraid to raise these things is because they see conflict as just being a confrontation.

Conflict doesn't have to be a confrontation. There are many ways you can have a conflict with someone where it doesn't become toxic.

So I think this is something that people need to keep in mind and be open to the fact that

a conflict is not always a bad thing as long as we have psychological safety and psychological standing to back us up. - Yeah, so what does that actually look like in a kind of tangible way when you have healthy conflict in a room? How does that play out?

So there's many ways of doing this. But for example, it's about,

firstly, this is just an example. You could start by asking the other person what do they make of the situation and why they have reacted in a certain way. Try to leave your assumptions at the door. It's so easy for us to make an assumption and to jump to our own conclusions. But firstly, try to understand the other's point of view. And this is where active listening and empathy come into place. This is where putting yourself in the other person's shoes comes into place.

And it's a lot more difficult to do than to say, obviously, because it's not something that we're comfortable with, especially when it comes to diversity and inclusion, especially if we have a conflict with a person that is different than us. And that could be racial diversity, it could be gender diversity, it could be someone that we just don't, we can't simply empathize with them as easily because we're not familiar with their identity. So firstly, as tangible action, I would say try to leave those things behind and firstly have an open conversation as to where you're each coming from. And then when there's a conflict, our sympathetic nervous system comes into play and we go into fight or flight.

When we pause and we take a breath, we activate our parasympathetic nervous system. And that's the nervous system that calms us down when I fight and flight anymore.

So we breathe and just listen. But my advice would be don't listen to reply. - Yeah. - Listen to listen.

Don't listen thinking that, oh, he said that, he or she said that, or they said that. And what am I going to say next? Because it's so easy to make up your reply in your head and you're missing some critical information.

And then it's about being open to receiving that feedback and always using words such as, in my opinion,

I felt that. So it's about owning your feelings. I felt that when you said this, blah, blah, blah, et cetera. So it's about owning your feelings. Sometimes it's as easy as just planting a simple idea at the beginning of the meeting, just saying, today I want to hear from everyone. That's it, you've planted the idea. So you're a manager and you say that to everyone, today I want to hear from everyone. That means that today you want to hear from everyone, everyone is included in this conversation. So these are some easy steps, but when it comes to conflict,

I guess this is how I would summarize it. Listen to listen, don't listen to reply.

And be open to reflect. Don't go into defensive mode straight away. Because when you say, if you were to say to me, Sarah,

you made me feel bad because I don't know, you didn't get me in my mug for my birthday.

I like this saying in a really strange awkward angle.

I could say, I could get defensive and I could say, well, I didn't get your mug because I don't know, I got you something else or I was busy or something. So that's me getting defensive, but it doesn't matter to you, does it? Because at the end of the day, you're hurt that I didn't get your mug. And I know this is not the greatest example,

but the point is I'm not taking your feelings into account. And it doesn't matter the reasoning that I have. What matters is that my actions hurt you.

My justification will make a difference.

I love that. I think it goes back to that thing that we always talk about, and especially when we talk about microaggressions, it's all about the impact, not the intention. Yes, we're all coming from a well-intentioned perspective. We're not trying to hurt people's feelings, which is all well and true, but the impact's still there. As you were saying, we still make those marks and those scars start to embed themselves and they don't disappear if we just focus on just the intention and not actually the impact of what we're saying and that person's feelings.

Yeah, absolutely. And with Toby, just listening, what he's doing, he's letting Oscar vent for half an hour or something into the office to get that initial rage or whatever he was experiencing out. But then what's under that? If you go looking at the emotions, what's under that? It's gonna build resentment towards Angela, towards everyone. It's just gonna be worse and worse and worse. And those things are not going to be so overt anymore. They're going to start being microbehaviors, microaggressions towards other people because they're not open anymore. I don't have that sense of rage. I wanna scream at Angela for that picture that she has on her desk. It's gonna become resentment. And we both know in the office, the whole thing between Oscar and Angela, how it turns out in the end. - So yeah, I mean, to be fair, they did obviously start to see eye to eye very much later in the later seasons. But you can see there is so much underlying like mutual disrespect and resentment towards each other. Like they can never see eye to eye. They're just constantly like seeing each other negatively. And it's not because of just one clear moment, it's probably those series of little moments that they've gone to Toby and said XYZ and it's gone unresolved. So they've just had to swallow that kind of difference in opinion or difference in thinking and not actually have that aired out and come to some sort of mutual understanding and meeting in the middle, right? And seeing each other and each other's kind of emotions in that particular scenario. - Yeah, absolutely. And it's also thinking about conflict resolution, you know? And I completely agree with what you're saying that they didn't have the space to air out these issues and they come out, you know, they just naturally come out in other ways.

But there's also something there about being open and finding common ground with another person because you can air these things out all you want. But if you're not open to help create the sense of psychological safety at work, then it's just going to be aired and it's just going to be a full on conflict.

So there's gotta be this openness from both sides to almost think of it this way. It's not me against you, it's me and you against the problem. - Yeah. - So we're a team, we have this problem. How do we as a team solve the problem? It's not me against you. - Yeah.

And that the way even when you say that, that creates a shift in the mindset.

You know, when you take the problem outside and you try seeing it from the outside,

that's a completely different way of putting the same issue but you put it, you create a complete different image about it. - Yeah, and I'm just thinking how different the US office would be if it was about us against the problem and not you against me. Cause I guess a lot of it, the problem would be, I don't know and Michael Scott and his management styles and

many other things.

The problem usually in the office is a behavior.

So it's a behavior that can be changed. That's the problem. The problem is not a person, you know, you can easily say, oh, you're my problem. You Dwight, I'm my problem. Or you Pam, I'm a problem because you talk about your wedding all the time. The problem is the behavior. And as long as you understand that the behavior can be changed, then that makes a difference. But then there's so much underlining this, you know, is there a willingness to change the behavior?

Do they care enough, you know, to get along

to change that behavior?

And, you know, there's so much under this. It's about how you create that space at work

where people are valued and feel valued, that they want to give you something back. You know, but it's so easy to say,

I don't want to change my behavior for someone at work.

I don't care. They're not my friend, they're not my family. But at the end of the day, you do spend eight hours a day with that person and getting along with them is just going to be so much better for everyone. - Yeah, exactly. I'm just thinking about what you were saying about

the seeing the problem with the behaviors, but I was just wondering with the way obviously the series goes, and it is always seen as like the person is the problem and people don't focus on the behaviors or the actions.

Do you think like by that point, you know, obviously then later on in the show, Michael Scott then gets, brings out the big box of all the complaints and starts hearing things like the things that people had like taken their complaints back. He was still talking about them openly. Once that's done, like, is there actually a way to come back from that? Is there a way to kind of build psychological safety? Because that's really hard. Once you've got all those complaints out in the air and everyone's like, oh, you know, Stanley made a complaint against Phyllis and was like, you know, I can't remember what his specific complaint was, but Phyllis was like, oh, I thought we were friends. You know, then there's a complaint against Pam about her wedding, as you said. And then there's all these other complaints that kind of come to light. And yeah, I just wonder like once that behavior is done and that kind of outcome has happened, is there a way back? Is there a way to get that kind of safety and trust back into the organization?

That's a really good question. And I think there's obviously no clear answer to it, but let's just try and put ourselves in those people's shoes.

In reality, obviously this is a show, but in reality, if something like this would happen, obviously let's ignore the whole legal issues with all of this. - Yes.

It would be extremely hard to come back from something like this. You would need to have employees that are extremely dedicated to stay in the same job. - Yeah. - That's what I can say about it.

You're trying to imagine a situation like this where you, firstly, okay, firstly in general, we see that there's this trend

that you can see on social media and everywhere, where you, people don't easily trust HR, firstly. So there's this trend of mistrust and everything that's meant to be anonymous, is it really anonymous? And we see them everywhere on TikTok. We see one side that says, "Oh, HR is not on your side." And then another side from HR people saying like, "No, that's complete rubbish," and et cetera. So firstly, it takes courage to go to HR and put in a complaint. But then if you see your complaints publicly like that,

I think it would be extremely difficult to come back in the real world.

Obviously it's cramping.

They have to have employees.

Yeah, yeah. But I would say, yeah, it's very difficult. - It is really, really tricky. Yeah, it's interesting that I feel like Toby and Michael take very polar opposite kind of approaches to the conflicts. And I think that just goes to show the very differences between Toby and Michael Scott in the entirety of the show. And just that point you made about, there is that trend of seeing HR as not someone to trust and as an entity itself to kind of keep it in arms length because it's there to protect the organization.

But there's also the other side where some managers might see HR as like sucking the fun out of everything because Michael Scott likes to see it in terms of, it's all about obligation and rule books and all of these things that Michael Scott's like, "No, we're a family and we're all gonna have a banter "and we're gonna have a good time together." Which is great in some ways, but in other ways it actually doesn't do a service to creating that kind of welcoming culture environment. And then there's a flip where, I guess Toby's in a difficult position because he's just this one person within the Scranton office who is responsible for HR, but potentially doesn't have all the power he needs to to be able to do things because that's just the kind of format of the organization. So he just doesn't deal with the conflicts. He doesn't kind of move forward with them. So it is like a tricky situation between the characters and their roles within that organization.

And that's really an interesting point because when you said that, Toby doesn't necessarily have the right tools to, just one person and Michael Scott is such a big presence in the room. So then what I was thinking, what you're talking is the fact that actually, well, Toby doesn't have psychological standing

because he knows that nothing that he says will feel valued, nothing that he says will be taken into account.

And I don't know, obviously the show starts with Toby being this way, but I don't think that Toby started being this way at the beginning. I think that at the beginning, he tried perhaps a little bit more to kind of put his foot down, but Michael Scott completely ignored him and always told him that you suck the fun out of everything. And what do you know about conflict resolution, Toby? Your answer to everything is to get divorced.

Yeah, very harsh. - Yeah, I was like, "I know, I know, I know, I know." (laughing)

So basically what happened is that Toby feels very safe in his job. He's got a psychological safety. He feels free maybe to speak up or to disagree, maybe so in some situations, but he has no psychological standing whatsoever.

And that was because he was squashed by Michael Scott.

He was an awful manager. - Yeah, because actually throughout the series, Toby does, he does air his disagreements and does kind of come up against Michael.

But as you say, the psychological standings, they're not there. So there's nothing that can come as a result of those disagreements. So yes, he has the safety, but the standing isn't quite there. And then as the series goes on, I think you can see that spark kind of just like fall to the wayside for Toby. And I think later on in the series, someone says, "Toby, isn't this your job as the HR person?" And he's like, I think he literally throws his pen and he's like, "HR's a joke." Like he just gets to that point where he can, he knows what's right and he knows that he can disagree. But like you say, that standing isn't there to be able to do. - Yeah, absolutely. And look where it takes him. Doesn't he go to Costa Rica and something like that? - Yeah, and then he gets injured, which I felt so bad about. So he didn't actually get to see Costa Rica. - Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, I remember that now. Yeah, exactly.

And I've seen in the real world,

usually in the real world, only one disagreement like this can be enough to make someone leave their job.

So it doesn't take a picture and a disagreement and a T-shirt or whatever is happening in the office. A lot of the times, one simple disagreement, if it's not handled properly and in a safe way, that's enough to make people leave.

And this is what I think people miss when they think about psychological safety, how crucial it is, because people will leave. People will not stay to take this level of microaggressions

forever, especially nowadays, where everyone is working remote, there's so many other jobs out there.

People don't really tend to accept this. And then you get those things where, you know that trend, quite quitting?

And you just start seeing them doing the very, very least at their jobs and they don't put any more effort into socializing with their colleagues or to build any sort of informal relationships, which we've seen from the research that are actually the ones that matter the most. And this is where people feel that they're excluded, not in the official relationships that you build at work, but it's about who you go to the pub after work. Who do you call when you want some advice? It's the informal network where we see minorities get excluded the most and we see them leave and then we lose the creativity, we lose the innovation. And that's because they never had psychological safety and psychological standing, they never felt valued. So they're all interrelated, all of these microaggressions, psychological safeties, empathy, they're all things that just make an employee feel safe and makes them motivate to give a lot of effort and perform well at their job. And unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand these things today

and you can lose it just like that.

So, so quickly. And whenever I watch the office, obviously if it was a real world, half of those employees would have gone by now, but obviously for the purpose of the show, they stick around and we see a lot more things transpire and a lot more mistakes that Michael Scott and various other characters make. - I think there was an episode once when the Scranton branch merges with another branch. - Yes. - There's a few employees that come in and they stay for an hour or two and they're like, "No, I'm out of here." - Yeah, it's- - Something happened as well. - It definitely did happen. We actually spoke about that in a previous podcast. So for those of the listeners that haven't heard that merger episode, definitely go back and listen to that because that's a good indication of when psychological safety is not there and people just, great talent just leaves the business.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly. - Sylvia, this has been truly wonderful.

I could listen to you talk all day about psychological safety and now psychological standing. You've just expanded my awareness of a whole new term. So I appreciate you. - Please don't, no, don't make me talk about this all day because I will talk to you about it all day. Seriously.

Well- - It's just once I started talking about it, I feel like there's so much information in my head all of a sudden and my mouth can't keep up. - Well, I do feel like there's probably a lot more episodes where there is good like case study and examples of a lack of psychological safety. So I think we'll probably have you back to talk more about it in terms of other episodes. And you know, other topics. - I'm really looking forward to it. Yeah, yeah. Because it's definitely a very good example of what, how we shouldn't be. - Exactly. - And then somehow it ends, everything ends on a good note somehow.

So, you know, maybe everything that we know is wrong. - Imagine, actually, if you create your office space, just like the US office show, everything will be amazing. Because somehow they still seem to get some really great results. Sales targets are always exceeded. Yeah, it's a very interesting- - Maybe there's something there that we don't know.

Well, you're the researcher. Maybe you can have a look and see what is, that we don't know, that maybe we should be implementing in our business. - Next PhD chapter, analysing Michael Scott management style.

Can't wait to read it.

Thank you so much. And thank you to all our listeners for tuning in for today's episode. I hope you enjoyed it. If there's a particular episode that you want us to kind of unpack next, then let us know. We'll have links in the description on how you can do that. And obviously if you want to have Sylvia back, which I'm sure you will, then let us know. And yeah, if there's any particular episode that you want Sylvia to unpack, then do message us and let us know. But yes, thank you so much. - Thank you for having me. - And see you in the next episode.