‘The absence of healthy conflict is a large part of why people will leave jobs, because it’s not where the growth happens.’
How do you feel about hard conversations at work?
Our approaches to conflict are often less than smart. Whether your tendency is towards avoidance or aggression, unless you’re actively rejecting ‘enforced harmony’ for an environment in which people are able to disagree well, you’re not getting the best out of your individuals or your organization. (Plus, given that most people are so bad at it, mastering hard conversations is the ultimate leadership edge.)
Alice Driscoll and Louise van Haarst, co-authors of Smart Conflict: How to Have Hard Conversations at Work, are experts at diagnosing the wide range of conflict styles and helping leaders make better decisions about how they adjust their approach for the situation and the person in front of them.
But could they walk the talk when it came to the ultimate stress test: writing a book together for the first time? Spoiler alert: yes. But what they discovered in the process will be gold to anyone considering a co-authored project.
The Powerhouse Company site: https://www.powerhouse-company.com/
Alice on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alice-elizabeth-driscoll/
Louise on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/louise-van-haarst/
Alison on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/the-alison-jones/
The 10-day Business Book Proposal Challenge: www.proposalchallenge.com
Alison Jones: This is an absolute treat. I am here today with Alice Driscoll and Louise van Haarst. Alice is a leadership coach and a conflict specialist. Louise is an executive coach and communication specialist, and together they are the founders of The Powerhouse, a global leadership development business on a mission to unlock human and organizational potential and to create leaders in teams who can manage conflict well, and on that note, they are the authors of Smart Conflict: How to have hard conversations at work, which I think all of us in the organizational space probably feel that we have needed, if not now, at some point in the past and definitely will in the future.
So first of all, welcome to you both. It’s lovely to have you here.
Alice Driscoll: Great to see you.
Alison Jones: And I’d love you to tell me a little bit more about that idea of smart conflict because it’s such an interesting phrase. What do you mean by smart conflict?
Alice Driscoll: Yes, so you know, we go into, I think there’s an almost an entire chapter on what we mean in the book. But I suppose in a nutshell, the way I think about it now is, you know, smart, intelligent, so, you know, with sort of some logical thought, but there’s a sense of an intelligent interaction and smart, so that’s a smart bit.
Conflict, what we mean by conflict in this context is a disagreement, a difference maybe, in values, maybe in opinions, maybe in perspectives, and about being able to navigate those differences in a really intelligent way. So, that’s kind of how Smart Conflict I suppose, was kind of born in our minds.
Louise van Haarst: Yes, it was a necessity in creating it. I was just thinking about that today, Alice, where I remember having a conversation with, it was actually a mutual job that we were doing. It’s client for one-to-one. And I remember him very clearly saying, oh God, why do I have to do all these niceties? I mean, it just takes so much time to do all the things you’re suggesting. Why can’t I just tell them straight?
And I’m like, well, you can, but in this context, that’s not the smartest thing to do. And the way in and the whole methodology is to think about yes, it might be a little bit more time consuming. It might take a bit more mental gymnastics, but actually in any one moment what’s the smartest thing that you can do? Which might not be the quickest in your mind you could do to possibly do to get the message across.
Alison Jones: That’s really interesting because that leader is obviously, you know, wanting to just tell. He just doesn’t see whether there should be any conflict. He’s the boss, you have to do what he says. There are other responses to the idea of conflict, aren’t there? So there’s that sort of sense that there shouldn’t be any, because you should just do what I tell you and that’s, you know, don’t ask me why just do it.
But there’s also the kind of conflict avoidance thing where the idea of conflict is something that you kind of want to just put away at all costs. You know, you want to smooth things over, you want people to be happy, you want a good feeling in the office. So how do you see that sort of spectrum of people’s responses to, feelings about, because emotions a huge thing here, isn’t it?
Conflict at work.
Louise van Haarst: So we talk about sort of six different conflict styles. We developed a default conflict style scale, that goes all the way through the gamut from avoidance, so you don’t show up at to the conversation at all, up to accommodating, which is I turn up, but I entirely kind of give you your own way, to compromising, which is okay, so we’re beginning to debate it, but it’s going to be a kind of, I win some, you win some, I lose some, you lose some. So we’re not necessarily going to really get to the crux of what’s going on here. That’s kind of a bit more of a negotiation.
Then we come up into collaborative, which most people think is where that they should be all the time. And we would argue that that’s actually not always the right style, but this is more of a space that we want people to come into, where we are looking at it as a task and we are looking at how we create solutions together. But that can be quite time consuming. We then come up to inflexible. We describe, it’s my way or the highway. So this is what’s happening and I’m not returning. Again, most people think that’s to be avoided, but actually there are times where that is where we want to land and stay. And then we kind of get it to what we call inflexible class, which is aggressive, which is I’m inflexible, but I’m going to bring an emotional force through my communication.
We would always say that in, apart from a very small number of circumstances, aggressive is not appropriate at the workplace. And if you’re in danger, if you really need to get somebody to stop something immediately, you may need to bring in emotional force. But otherwise people are going to hear the emotion, not the content of what you’re saying.
And as you would imagine, we tend to work with people who are the kind of two ends of that spectrum. People who really find conflict overwhelming. Who find the idea kind of so nervous system, kind of full body experience triggering that they can’t…
Yes, exactly. Fight, flight or freeze, it’s a threat response. They can’t even consider it.
Right up to those people who are going in all guns blazing. They might be getting some results, but they’re not getting the results they want and sometimes we’re brought in to help them be a little bit more smart about they are showing up.
Alison Jones: I think even just you articulating that taxonomy is so helpful. It’s something that’s really strong in the book as well, because it immediately, I think as a leader you can see that there are, you have options and, and that you can borrow different tactics there.
Alice Driscoll: I think the thing we always want to land with people when we sort of misleadingly get them to think about where might they sit on this spectrum, is that, of course, as Louise alluded to, there is no right or wrong answer. There’s just context and choices and you know… and I think this is where another part of Smart Conflict, sort of default in its title, is that we think that conflict is a force for good and is essential when it’s the right kind. And part of being the right kind is choosing the right kind of intervention in the right context.
And so we spend quite a lot of time in our workshops getting people to really think like, when would it be absolutely strategically appropriate to be avoidant? Because there’s times where that’s the case. When is it strategically appropriate to be completely inflexible? Which was that first description you gave us of the leader who says, I’ve decided, get on with it. And there’s a time and a place for both and everything in between.
Alison Jones: When I first spoke to you both about this idea, one of the things that struck me most forcefully was, and it’s one of those things that when once you’ve seen it, you can’t unsee it. You’re like, well, of course. But it really did strike me, that idea that no conflict in an organization, is just as bad as, you know, unstoppable conflict almost.
So tell me a bit more about why we need conflict. What’s good about it?
Alice Driscoll: Yes, so I mean, there’s loads and loads of juicy data and stats around kind of the upside of having healthy debate and smart conflict in your teams and your organizations. And also lots and lots of research that documents the problems that are present and the downside of its absence.
I mean, our favorite stat is that there’s a, you know, there’s a 22 sort of ish percent upswing when you develop smart conflict and you have that healthy debate in your team, so you have the right kind of conflict. So there’s a kind of opportunity to grab, which is what are all those missed ideas, missed opportunities for improvement?
So maybe you’re doing okay, but where could you be if you were kind of having these slightly more robust, honest conversations about what everyone was really thinking and feeling? And then there’s all the things that can happen in its absence which are kind of more damaging. So there is an enormous decline in creativity, in innovation.
But also , there is a lot of data that suggests the absence of healthy conflict is a large part of why people will leave jobs because it’s not where the growth happens. And we’re sort of hardwired to grow, you know, innately as humans. And to kind of feel that we are reaching our potential. So if we’re not getting feedback, if it’s not a space where we can give feedback, an awful lot of, at best frustration can start to build.
And I think at worse, the malaise and the disengagement can really start to kick in. So I think we know when we’re operating at a surface level and you know, there’s a comfort in it and there’s a fear of going deeper, but there’s a frustration in it too, and a sense of just sort of turning up and doing our jobs and it all becomes quite transactional, which actually is not kind of feeding the soul.
Alison Jones: Yes.
Louise van Haarst: I think there’s another side to what we would call the enforced harmony that exists in some of the teams that we go into, which is, while if you observe it, it kind of looks harmonious and everybody’s nodding and kind of, there’s a consensus. We all know the meeting that happens after the meeting.
We all know the kind of pairs and triads and back channels and kind of deals that are done outside of that space if the real stuff isn’t brought into what we call task conflict into the room where we’re surfacing it, we’re kicking it around, we’re bringing some honesty, we’re bringing data. We’re saying we don’t agree in that space. That’s kind of where psychological safety lives.
So I think there’s a kind of, there’s sort of this idea that teams that collaborate well are sort of all nodding and smiling and kind of agreeing with each other. And actually we would say the polar opposite. And if that’s happening, it’s a bit of a signal about the fact that is happening somewhere it’s just not happening in the room.
Alison Jones: It’s so true, isn’t it? As writers working together on conflict, was there ever a point where you felt that you were kind of living what you were writing? Because it’s, I know that you work together a lot and you’ve developed your ways, but how do you as writers, as a sort of collaboration, surface and address the conflict that’s sort of inherent in writing a book.
Louise van Haarst: I think there’s different ways to answer that. I mean, the first thing to say is we really did not ever fall out at all when we were writing this, well, not from my perspective anyway. Maybe you can tell me Alice, if you experienced it differently.
Wasn’t enforced harmony, but I think because we work so much together and I think because we have to live and breathe what we do, we are probably quite good at doing the kind of small circle of, oh, here is maybe something that we haven’t decided on, or we don’t agree on, how do we surface it? How do we talk about it? How do we have a laugh about it? How do we kind of move it on?
So, I wouldn’t say we definitely didn’t fall out. Did we have to use our methodology at points? Probably right at the end where it all got really hairy.
I think there was quite a lot of stress involved. We probably had to be slightly more mindful about how we approached each other. But I think ultimately I found the writing process, I mean, just like a pleasant, happy thing. Like I really enjoyed writing with Alice, it was great. I think we were often in exactly the same stage with family life being incredibly busy, our work being incredibly busy, you know, we really had to do it however we could do it. I think one thing that was incredibly helpful from my perspective is that with the support from you and Practical Inspiration we had a really great proposal, which then turned into a writing plan because we had the chapter headings and we worked out who was writing what, and we did write separately for almost the whole time.
I think that’s quite an interesting thing to talk about. Perhaps you can talk about that, Alice, because I think we took a bit of a different approach to how we wrote and what level that we wrote and sort of how we recorded our ideas and there was a process of bringing it back together and harmonizing the style, which is probably the bit that you couldn’t predict how you’re going to do it as co-authors.
And we would now have a process, but we didn’t have a process for it then. What would you say Alice?
Alice Driscoll: I mean, you know, obviously, you’ve kind of talked about it, so that is very kind of familiar and consistent, I guess with my experience. I’ve got, I think, two observations. One is, there was one really, really crunchy moment in terms of what, you know, where I think, another pair of writers could have had a really difficult kind of time.
But I think because there is such a level of mutual respect and trust in the partnership, when somebody brings up something difficult, which Louise did, so the point at which we first swapped our writing and read what each other wrote. I read it and went, oh, great. I think it’s all looking brilliant. And Louise read it and went, Ugh. I’m not happy with it.
And you know, that’s two quite different kind of reactions and that’s partly because we were sort of evaluating slightly different elements of it. It is partly, you know, it’s all sorts of reasons. And I remember that first phone call Louise went, well, it’s just not ready to go over to the editor. And I’m like it’s not in a good place. And I remember being like okay, but like bummer, because you know, I’m like ready to ping it over. So that’s a problem we’ve now got to solve that. You know, it’s never fun to solve problems. Like it’s great, isn’t it, when everyone’s just happy. But I think a combination of me going, okay, I really want to understand what it is here.
So I didn’t panic, I didn’t freak out. I just went, okay. I just need to understand what it is about it that’s leading you to that conclusion that’s so different to kind of like my conclusion because I believe that there must be something you’re seeing that I’m not seeing because I have so much respect for you.
And also well, we’ll figure it out and a complete belief that we’d solve the problem together and also a real belief that it wasn’t personal.
Alison Jones: Yes.
Alice Driscoll: And I suppose not a sense for myself, and I think I didn’t have a huge identity attached to needing to be the best writer in the world. So it was kind of easy to receive any feedback about the quality of it or the structure of it or whatever.
And so a combination of those factors, which are tools in the book in a way, and one of the things that has been occurring to me a lot recently, that is true about the tools in the book is that they are most applicable for those relationships where the high trust and the high respect is not quite there yet.
So if you are in an extremely high trust partnership, you can’t really go wrong because you can kind of take anything from each other because you fundamentally believe in the intention and you fundamentally believe in the power to resolve it, the language you use and how you do it doesn’t really matter. You can kind of get away with almost anything.
And Louise and I always remark, if anyone was watching us having a chat, they’d probably be like, whoa, do these two even like each other, what’s going on here. Whereas for us, we’re having a lovely time just getting to the point , and there’s, you know, it’s all good, but other people might think, you know, might read it differently.
And I think I often work with clients. I have someone in my mind I worked with on Monday, who was saying, well, my style is just to be super direct and you know, if this person can’t handle that, I don’t want to change. And I said, ah, I can see that this style works brilliantly in your high trust relationships. That’s not the situation here, and that’s why you need to use the tools in the book to try out something else to get the result you’re looking for.
Alison Jones: Yes, that contextual awareness is very much part of the smart thing.
Louise van Haarst: Yes and I think just to, for any other future pairs of co-authors who listen to this, I think what was really interesting is the kind of the conclusion of that story was that nobody had done anything wrong. We just had very different ways of writing in our little kind of vacuum. And whereas I was sort of verbose and had sort of, you know, written everything, absolutely, if it could be published tomorrow, all the shape was there for you, the dynamism was there for you. Everything was there for you, but you just hadn’t quite written it quite as fully as me. So when we put it together, we were like, oh, it just needs a bit of regularization.
So it wasn’t, it was nothing catastrophic. Like all the ideas were brilliant, all the content was there. In fact, there was too much because we had to cut it down by 23,000 words. But so, but it was that, and I think it was like, it was just a process problem. It wasn’t an ideas problem or a talent problem or writing problem.
It was literally like, oh, we couldn’t have known that we would’ve approached this so differently. So when, I say when, we write another book together, we now get what our process and what finished looks like at each stage.
Alice Driscoll: But also partly because of the timeframe, which was that we’d already missed a couple of deadlines. So we were on a, like a super high, high and our busy lives and so on, so forth. And I think I was getting married, wasn’t I, at the same time we were delivering.
Alison Jones: Yes, there…
Louise van Haarst: …yes
Alice Driscoll: Yes I remember when we thought, okay, well Louise had, as you said, had really gone into the detail on what’s a great sentence structure, where I was like, right, does this paragraph loosely make the right points? We can worry about the exact words and making it read really nicely kind of in the next stage.
So it’s partly just going, what is required? What’s a draft? You know, and aligning on that, not with each other and probably with you guys. I think a little bit as well. And then the second bit was we went, okay, so how do we get there?
And we very, very quickly came to the conclusion that this was Louise’s absolute forte to kind of write, you know, beautiful sentences. And I sort of said, look, would it be, am I being lazy if we just say, do you just want to kind of do a pass on and Louise was like, no, but would I be being controlling?
I’m like, no, this just makes perfect. So playing to your strengths as well, you know?
Alison Jones: It’s… so much of the emotional content of what you come up with there, as well as the process is so interesting. Just to pick up a few things, just for anybody who’s considering sort of writing together, you talk a lot about the high trust thing, which is fantastic. And not something that you can create instantly, but that the things that also I notice there that, you know, the self-belief, that the sense that just because somebody’s being critical of this piece of work, doesn’t mean they’re being critical of me. Which immediately, you know, puts you in a better sort of frame of mind.
And there was sort of resourcefulness like, well, there will be a way to fix this and we’ll find it. You know, it’s not a problem. And that just assuming that things are coming from a good place, all of those which are instinctive to you now, I think, but they’re so, if they’re not there, it becomes a really miserable experience. Yes.
Alice Driscoll: Yes and it really wasn’t, it was, the only stressful thing was just prioritizing time to write when all these other urgent things are drawing on your attention. And I think that was the hardest thing about the whole process, was creating the space, but we wanted to create the space and the actual writing was joyful.
And doing it as a shared experience for me made it extra joyful.
Alison Jones: I am guessing as well that that kind of accountability and the two of you made the creating time, I would say easier, but it meant you did it.
Alice Driscoll: I think so.
Alison Jones: Hmm.
Louise van Haarst: Yes, but I think our work ethic is very, very similar. So I never had a moment of doubt that we wouldn’t both find a way of doing it and carving out the time. And I used to get up at four in the morning and you used to work in the evening and we just got it done. And even when I joke about like the time where we were writing ourselves out of a hole, I still remember that with sort of great happiness, like sitting there for hours, for eight hours and kind of like, and you’re going, how you going?
And I’m going, I’m good, I’m at this chapter, where are you? How this this graphic going? I hate doing like the references, which your mind is much more… See, I hate references. I hate references. I like writing sentences. So we, even when and, we were, but we were both writing ourselves out of the hole together because, but we just had different defined tasks and we would check in and go, right, where are you? Where are you? Where are you? So I still remember that with sort of great fondness, bizarrely.
Alice Driscoll: I think we were just very lucky because we couldn’t have known that before, that we were constantly grateful that the other person was doing the bit they were doing, and we got to do the bit we were doing. I mean, you just couldn’t design a better team in that sense for writing.
Alison Jones: Yes And there will be people throwing things at whatever device they’re listening to right now, because they’re not in that situation. But if there’s somebody’s listening, and particularly I think, if they are considering writing a book in collaboration, what’s one tip that you would give them? What do you wish you’d known before you started maybe?
I’m going to take you both in turn, actually, I’ll start with Louise on this.
Louise van Haarst: Gosh, what do I wish I’d known before? I mean, I think, if I’m honest with you, Alison, I don’t really do, I don’t, I’m quite a spontaneous person but I am an analytical, boundaried, risk managing person. So I think I did know this before that I was only going to write with somebody that I thought I would have fun with, that I could trust, that we had a sense of shared endeavor, that there wasn’t a load of ego involved. I think I did know all those things in advance, which is why we agreed to do it in the first place.
I don’t think I would’ve agreed to write with anybody if I had feared some of those things were in place.
Alison Jones: A life partner, isn’t it?
Louise van Haarst: Well, there is, I mean, there are some analogies to it, I think because you’re bound together now, like we’ve written this thing, it’s out in the world, our names are together.
I mean, it exists in the world. So there is that, you’re kind of binding your fates together. But I think, what do I wish I had known? I guess just how much fun it would be, but also sort of how amazing it would be to develop this thing that didn’t exist. Somebody that people are using. I think that would’ve just given me even more.
I think we’ve done it in a very sort of measured, sensible, focused way. Alice, I think if we know, if we knew then what we knew now, I would’ve probably approached it with sort of much more joi de vivre rather than we actually did. But there was a lot going on.
Alison Jones: That’s lovely. Alice, what about you?.
Alice Driscoll: Yes, I’m just, it’s interesting, isn’t it? Nothing sort of really is kind of obviously springing to mind it that, that I’m not sure how helpful this will be for others. I’m, I’m afraid, but it is what’s coming to mind, which is that I think the only thing that I, the thing I really learned about Louise in the process that I didn’t know before, and that she herself, I remember had an aha moment and went, oh yes, I’ve now realized that.
And that was that Louise had actually done a lot of writing before and was a very experienced writer. And so I think I thought we were, perhaps we were going into the experience, you know, with not exactly a level playing field on the right. because I knew just from, you know, her emails and from various things that, you know, she was very eloquent.
I, it not that I, think we navigated that moment of like, of difference in our readings of that first draft well, but I suppose part, I think that’s partly why that happened was that we had you know, a different interpretation of, of, of what a draft would be. And so I suppose the only thing that would be different if I’d have known that upfront is then we would’ve upfront had a sort of expectation about my sentence structures or, you know, and what our roles might be around that, but it’s not as if there was a real problem.
Alison Jones: Hmm.
Louise van Haarst: No, but in terms of kind of handing this, the knowledge onto somebody else, I think that is a good one. I think know what a shitty first draft is and have your, like your terms and examples of what that. It’s like almost physically know what a kind of decent ish first draft, where you’ve sort of got some holes in it.
Know what a good first draft is, it’s going to go to your editor and it’s going to go to your beta readers and know what finish looks like. I think codifying that would be really useful. So that is, Yes, I think that’s one thing that would’ve been.
Alison Jones: That’s really useful and it’s useful feedback for me as a publisher as well. So it’s it’s really interesting. But Yes, even knowing what you want your first draft to look like has got to, is, is sort of contingent on, on how it goes and how much time you have and all the rest of it as well.
Alice Driscoll: Oh, that makes sense. That makes sense. I think the question we kept asking ourselves, which is the right question? That point is what’s the thing we should submit that will put, will give us the, the highest quality feedback? You know? And, and so there’s, and of course you’ve got your time limitations going to drive that, but, but putting that aside for a minute, I don’t think we knew what the answer to that question was, which would’ve…
Alison Jones: I think that’s a really hard question as well, because there’s a, there’s a sort of point at which it’s polished enough that somebody can really get the sense of it and give you some valuable feedback and, and not have to sort of stress about them, the small things that you could fix if you just read it again, but not so finished that you feel fully invested in it and you’re not willing to take on board substantive feedback.
So, you know, it’s, it’s a difficult decision.
Louise van Haarst: I can see that.
Alison Jones: As well for your recommendations, so you’re not allowed to recommend Smart Conflict. I will do that at the end. Starting with you this time, Alice, what book would you recommend us?
Alice Driscoll: So I’m recommending Working Identity because this is the book that kickstarted my entire kind of career shift into conflict. Because it really asks the right questions about, you know, what it is that you want to do. So I just, you know, and I know Louise and I both always recommend this book for anyone who is thinking about kind of a career change.
So it’s it’s a book for leaders in that there are people who are rethinking their careers all the time. But for me it’s, it was the start of the journey.
Alison Jones: And it’s Herminia Ibarra. If you’re not watching on YouTube, that’s, Yes terrific book, that’s a really, really good recommendation. Thanks. Alice. What about you, Louise?
Louise van Haarst: I haven’t got it with me to hold up, so you’re just going to have to imagine it, but you can find it where, wherever you find good books it’s a, it’s a book called Insight by Tasha Eurich who’s an American organizational psychologist and also a coach. And I remember reading that book quite early on in my coaching career and it really kind of codified something that I had experienced personally and I was seeing some of my clients experience personally, that there is such a thing as self-awareness.
I think we all sort of crash through life doing our best, wondering where people are reacting to us the way we do, and then suddenly we’ll have these moments in life where we see ourselves from somebody else’s perspective. And Tasha really kind of got her arms around what that means as a human, as somebody in the workplace as a leader.
There’s loads of interesting research in there and she talks about the importance of kind of self-reflection, but also getting feedback from others. And I think I was more in… kind of inspired and set alight by reading that book in my own coach journey which has led me to where we are today in thinking about self awareness as such an important thing, that really focusing on this, this kind of conflict and how we show up in conflict and we, we say ‘self-awareness’ about 200 times I think in the book because we, it’s all about, you know, it’s kind of the awareness of yourself and how you’re showing up and your impact is foundational actually to everything that’s in Smart Conflict.
Alison Jones: It’s really interesting actually because both of those books I can see immediately how their influence has has shown up in Smart Conflict. They’re terrific and I haven’t read Insights, so thank you particularly for that recommendation. Really love it when people recommend books that I’m not aware of yet.
If people want to find out more about you both, more about the Powerhouse, more about Smart Conflict, where should they go?
Alice Driscoll: Yes, so probably head to the Powerhouse company, which is our business website. And there’s a couple of diagnostics on there now as well. So some online diagnostics. So if you want to kind of find out a bit more about your own relationship with conflict or do a team diagnostic and get kind of a, a bit of a scorecard for how you’re doing with smart conflict and the opportunities there, those, those two things as well as a whole bunch of other stuff about us and our services.
Alison Jones: Fantastic. I will put those put that link up on the show notes at extraordinarybusinessbooks.com. And I just want to finish my, with a very personal note, just saying how, how much I love this book. I think it’s…
Louise van Haarst: …oh…
Alison Jones: …think it’s brilliant. It’s very well written and all the rest of it, but it’s also one of those books that you sort of want to gift to every, not even just leader, anybody in an organization, because I think it’s really the, the most important skill they could possibly kind of get their heads around. So thank you for writing it. It’s it’s terrific.
Alice Driscoll: Thank you. We were thinking it could be a really good passive-aggressive Christmas gift for managers.
Alison Jones: Just sort of leave it on your boss’s office on your desk and run away.
Louise van Haarst: Secret Santa. Yes But thank you.
Alison Jones: That’s right.
Louise van Haarst: That means, that means a great deal.
Alison Jones: Fantastic. Well, thank you both so much for your time today as well. It’s been wonderful finding a little bit more about the process behind it.
