‘Inclusion is what you do and diversity is what you get.’
Paolo Gaudiano’s expertise ranges from rocket science through computational neuroscience to the really tough work: diversity, equity and inclusion in organizations.
It’s not got any easier over the last couple of years, but it’s not got any less important, either. Paolo simply points to the evidence: focusing on improving workplace experiences for all employees leads not only to happier people but also to better business outcomes. His book – Measuring Inclusion: Higher profits and happier people, without guesswork or backlash – was named International Business Book of the Year at the Business Book Awards in 2025.
We also talk about the power and perils of language, the concept of ‘gateway words’, and the importance of recognizing that the words that work for you might not work for others…
Paolo’s site: https://www.aleria.tech/
Paolo on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pgaudiano/
Alison on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/the-alison-jones/
The 10-day Business Book Proposal Challenge: www.proposalchallenge.com
Link for submitting your clip for Episode 500: https://bit.ly/45RfpdY
Alison Jones: With degrees in applied mathematics, aerospace engineering, and computational neuroscience. Paolo Gaudiano has basically done rocket science and brain surgery before he turned to the really hard problems of how to create companies that have happier employees while making more money.
He’s the chief scientist of Aleria, he’s adjunct at NYU Stern School of Business, and he’s chairman of the Annual Diversity and Inclusion Research Conference, and he works to transform how people think about DEI and what they do about it, with the ultimate goal of making our society more inclusive and equitable.
And as well as numerous academic papers and articles, he’s the author of Measuring Inclusion: Higher profits and happier people without guesswork or backlash, which was brilliantly named International Business Book of the Year at this year’s Business Book Awards.
So first of all, welcome Paolo and yay.
Paolo Gaudiano: Thank you Alison, and yes, yay. And I have you and your team to thank for all the incredible work that you did, helping me get the book ready. So thank you.
Alison Jones: Oh, that’s right. We did all the hard work publishing it. You just wrote it. Know, what’s the…
it is such an important book, I’m so pleased it did get that kind of recognition. Just tell us, as if we didn’t know, but just tell us why this book matters more than ever.
Paolo Gaudiano: Well, it matters…
Alison Jones: What is it about inclusion?
Paolo Gaudiano: Yes, no, absolutely. And I think that the fact that I received a couple of awards and a couple of nominations was very meaningful to me because it’s a book that ultimately is about diversity, equity and inclusion. And I got these awards when diversity, equity and inclusion was very much under fire, and I could see that coming.
And really the whole point of writing this book was to essentially talk about work that I’ve been doing now for many years. That started with the realization that the way that a lot of work in diversity, equity and inclusion was focusing on things that while they’re motivating are not necessarily motivating for everyone and especially for business leaders.
And so I began to ask myself whether the research that I’ve been doing for 20, 25 years prior might be applicable to understand how to quantify the benefit that companies can enjoy by treating all of their employees better. And along the way I realized a very important, crucial aspect that it’s not just about the diversity of people, but a lot of it’s about how people experience the workplace.
And so we came up with a definition of inclusion that is very clear, very measurable. And I felt that was such an important thing to include or to share with the rest of the world. And that’s where I came up with the idea of writing the book. And to underscore something you said earlier, actually, honestly, the writing of the book was easy. The getting it published was a lot less easy. So again, very grateful for everything that you and your team did.
Alison Jones: Oh, that’s good to hear.
Using language that I think people I think will obviously have heard before but there’s so much difference in interpretation and in emphasis. So, just when you talk about inclusion and particularly inclusion at work, what are you talking about?
Paolo Gaudiano: And that’s actually a brilliant point and it’s one of the things that I realized when I came into this space is that even though people talk about DEI, actually when I started it was just D and I, it was diversity and inclusion. Then equity got thrown in the mix. But even though most people would agree as to what diversity means and how to measure it, when it comes to inclusion, if you ask ten experts what they mean by that word, you’re going to get ten different answers.
Some of them focus on the feelings of individuals. Some of them focus on the culture of an organization. Some of them focus on, everybody being around the table. And there’s all of these different definitions. And I thought this is very unfortunate because if you start with a field where one of the core terms is not defined very well, it leaves the door wide open for other people to come in and give negative definitions. As unfortunately has happened both with the word equity and with the word inclusion.
In my case, what I realized from a very engineering perspective, all of my work is about quantifying the link between an individual and whatever collective they’re a part of, whether it’s an employee in an organization, a driver on the highway, a consumer in a marketplace. And from the point of view of an organization, what I realized is that inclusion, the way that I define it, is whether and to what extent you’re ensuring that all of your employees have the same workplace experiences. And by experiences I mean day-to-day things that happen to them, and ensuring that those do not depend on characteristics that in principle should be relevant, such as your gender, your race, your sexual orientation, and so on and so forth.
And the idea is that if you are creating an environment, in which by virtue of being a woman or by virtue of being a black person or by virtue of being gay, you are going to have experiences that will interfere with your ability to do your work, then clearly not everybody has the same opportunity to succeed.
And so I was very careful, in fact, in the book, we come down to these very simple definitions where we say inclusion is what we do. And we always start with inclusion because we believe that’s the foundation from which everything else arises. And in fact, we say that inclusion is what you do and diversity is what you get.
As an organization the diversity is the output, it’s the result, of everything that you’ve done over the years, it’s not something that you should control directly. And then finally, I talked about equity. I define equity as being what you want. And I’ll come back to that later because it touches on another very important topic that is going to be my next book.
But, so inclusion is what you do. Diversity is what you get. And I’m very careful to say from the point of view of the company, not from the point of view of the individual.
Alison Jones: Oh let’s double down on that because I think that is really important. And you and I talked a lot about that subtitle about the idea of backlash because if you’re a leader who’s made your way perfectly well, because none of those otherness categories apply to you. You can feel very included and you feel like everybody’s being included. So you know, your experience, you can’t know what the people are experiencing.
But also why would you care? If your company is doing pretty well actually, what is it about inclusivity that is going to give you a competitive edge as opposed to simply feeling like you’re doing the right thing?
Paolo Gaudiano: And this is actually another realization that I had, that a lot of the work that I’ve seen, tries to motivate leaders to do the right thing, by the right thing being an end in and of itself. Oh, you should be fair to all of your employees. Everybody should be treated fairly.
And my thinking is, my goal is to make money. My goal is to maximize shareholder value. My goal is to increase stock price. And frankly, if I can do that by focusing on one group of people and the other people are unhappy, why should I care? And this idea that if you just sprinkle magic diversity dust, unicorns will pop out of the ground, then life will be all kumbaya and it’ll be wonderful. Is a bit naive, right? And unfortunately, often we see that doesn’t happen.
And instead what I realized through the research and building these computer simulations and really understanding the link between the individual and the collective is really surprisingly simple, which is that if you have two groups of people that have different levels of satisfaction for reasons that have nothing to do with how good they are, simply because of their gender, the race, et cetera, what will happen is two things.
The people that are less satisfied will produce less. It’s a very well known fact that at the level of the individual, the satisfaction of an individual is tied to their quality of work and their productivity. So if you’re generating revenues for a company and you’re dissatisfied, you will generate less revenue for the company.
And secondarily, if you’re less satisfied, you’re more likely to leave. And we all know that rehiring people that left voluntarily is a very expensive proposition. So my argument to say, look, if I have men have a level of satisfaction up here and women are down here, and let’s say that I have a thousand women, and because of the lower level of satisfaction their retention rate is 10% lower than it is for men, that means that I’m losing a hundred women every year that I should not be losing. And if each of these women is making a hundred thousand pounds a year, it’s known that it’s roughly a year’s worth of salary to replace them. You’re talking about 10 million pounds a year just because of less retention, simply because you do not know how to treat women so that they have the same workplace experiences as men.
So I completely flip that argument around, and I go to business leaders and we have a little calculator that I talk about in the book, and we just say, look, if you tell me how many men, how many women, how many people of color, how many people with disabilities, and you have any measurement of their satisfaction, sense of belonging, sense of inclusion, those are all fairly interchangeable when you measure them, I can estimate for you how much money you’re likely to be losing. And it turns out that amount is very large. That amount of money is in the ballpark of, we estimate that a typical company is invisibly losing between 20 and 30% of their net profits. And that’s a big number. And that’s actually why the third piece of the DEI, we define it as equity, is what you want.
Because if you think of the difference in satisfaction, which is the result of promotions, compensation, everything that happens to your work, if you see a difference in satisfaction, it means that there is an inequity. That inequity is costing you money. So your goal, instead of saying, oh, I want more of these, more of those, hire these, hire those. Your goal is very simple. Measure things to identify those inequities and drive them to zero.
And if you do that, you will make more money because you’re going to raise the level of satisfaction of the groups that had less satisfaction. And that means that you will get greater productivity and greater retention rates.
So it’s really a surprisingly simple argument, and that’s why in the subtitle, the first part of the subtitle, I was, as you recall, we had a lot of discussions about exact ordering of the words, right? It was like higher profits and happier people, and I was careful to recognize that, ultimately our readers are business leaders who care about higher profits. And then if secondarily, you can also make your people happier, great.
Then the second part of the subtitle was, without guesswork or backlash. Without guesswork, because we quantify things, we measure inclusion, we measure what we’re calling equity, we link that to the business outcomes.
And then without backlash, why? Because if your goal is to identify differences in satisfaction, find the cause and drive it to zero. You’re not creating a sense of zero sum. If you’re going to hire more women, it means you’re going to have to fire some men. you want to hire more black people, you have to hire more white people, which has led to so much discontent and so much backlash.
And I talk about that in the book. I say, yes, look, it’s pretty obvious to me that if you focus on diversity, you’re making two mistakes. One of them is that you’re focusing on the outputs, on the outcomes. And two is you’re going to create backlash. And sadly, I predicted this back in 2018 and it was probably the most accurate prediction I’ve ever made in my entire life.
And sadly it came true because a lot of people complained about the fact that they were feeling left out and they were feeling discriminated against, and now we’ve seen what happens. So that’s the explanation of that title, that subtitle.
Alison Jones: And there’s something even more sort of basic and intangible under that, isn’t it? That you are being made to feel wrong somehow, that you’re being made to feel as though you are in the wrong, that you’re doing the wrong thing, that you are privileged and the, yes, also all the things that make people deeply uncomfortable you’re doing with those. So let’s just look at the figures here, shall we? It’s a very different quality of conversation, isn’t it?
Paolo Gaudiano: Absolutely. And actually you’re spot on because I was talking more about the approach. But in terms of the reality of how people went about embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion, one of the most common approaches was to do what’s called unconscious bias training. The idea is we all carry unconscious biases, and it’s because of these unconscious biases that we will look at two resumes and give a higher priority to the male sounding resume than to the female sounding resume.
So what do we do? If only we could fix your mistakes, if only we could remove your biases. In other words, what we’re doing by doing that is we’re blaming individuals. We have this naive thinking that if only everybody was beautiful and perfect and nobody had any problems, then this would be a perfect world, which is absolutely impossible to achieve.
And when you do that, you make… the people who understand the problem are bored because they already understand it. And the people who don’t understand the problem feel attacked. They feel accused. They feel like they’re guilty of something, they feel like they’re doing something bad, and neither of those is a very productive or fruitful approach. And that’s actually been one of the biggest problems. Is it’s been the combination of the focus on the wrong variables and implementing activities that have actually been proven through research to be very ineffective and in many cases to cause backlash and to be counterproductive.
Alison Jones: Yes.
Paolo Gaudiano: Yes.
Alison Jones: And one of the outcomes of that as well, and obviously there’s a huge political dimension to this, as well as a business dimension, as well as a sort of an emotional context, but one of the particularly difficult issues in the area of DEI has been this backlash against language, against sort of knee jerk reaction against the pushback.
What, let’s talk about Meritocracy, your upcoming book, and the way that you have almost said that this is not a productive conversation to get involved in. It’s polarizing. It’s unhelpful. Let’s just completely recalibrate the argument by using different language, which allows us to take the emotional temperature down.
So just talk me through the thinking behind that.
Paolo Gaudiano: So I had this bizarre experience about a year and a half ago where I was invited to be part of a debate where there was a professor, a Canadian professor of origin, who now is in London and myself, and we were essentially each presenting a point of view. I was presenting a pro – DI and he was presenting an anti- DI point of view.
And I had previously, prior to this event, I had heard an analogy used in DI that goes like this imagine you’re watching a foot race, like at the Olympics and you know it’s a big stadium and the gun goes off and as the runners go around the first bend, they realize that there were obstacles left on some of the tracks, but not all of them.
So what ends up happening is that the people that had no obstacles quickly get in front of everybody else. The judges seeing this say wait a second, this is not fair. Let’s remove the obstacles, but that’s not enough. Let’s stop temporarily everybody. Give everybody a chance to catch up and then let’s continue the race. That’s meant to be an analogy of the fact that because certain people have had disadvantages and obstacles, that we need to not simply create exactly equal opportunities, but we need to actually give some people the opportunity to catch up.
So I’m sitting in this conversation or having this debate with this guy, and he’s presenting the work and says, imagine a race, and now imagine that the gun goes off and the faster runners get ahead, and the judges stop the faster runners and say, wait, you have to wait for the others, for the slower runners, because we want everybody to end the same. This is what DI is all about. They want equality of outcomes even for people that are less qualified.
And as I sat there, I thought, how can you take virtually identical analogies and come to two diametrically opposite conclusions?
So as I started to think about that, I asked myself what’s going on here? And I realized that both groups are making profound assumptions that are tacit. So the for, the DEI people assume that the reason why some people are getting ahead is because the other ones were not giving equal opportunity.
While the people that are for meritocracy assume that the people are getting ahead because they’re faster. The reality is that neither of them actually knows what’s happening. A more proper analogy would be I walk into a stadium and I see the judges stopping some of the runners ahead, but I don’t know why.
And so, what I started to realize is that when people talk about meritocracy and they say, oh, DI ruins meritocracy, that’s because they come from the assumption that opportunities are equal. And in fact, it’s a fundamental belief of meritocracy is what’s called equality of opportunity and inequality of outcomes. The best will rise to the top, right? It’s like American dream. It’s if you’re better than anybody else, you should have different outcomes.
So when somebody from DEI says, no, we want everybody to have the same outcome. What they mean is, if we do the same amount of work and we both deserve the same outcome, we should have the same outcome.
But what the meritocracy people hear is, regardless of my skills, I want to have the same outcome as you have. And so that created this kind of difference and this tension. But in reality, we all want the same thing. We want to be able to be hired and once we’re hired to be able to advance, be promoted, be compensated, regardless of your relevant characteristics.
So what they call merit, other people call inclusion or equity or whatever you want to call it. And what I realize is that the key is that if you really want to say they have a meritocracy, it’s not enough to measure the outcomes. You have to do both. You have to measure merit, meaning the person A and person B, did they do the same thing or they do different things, but you also need to measure the opportunity.
Did they have the same opportunity to contribute to the company. Because if you see and you say look, person A is better, they have a better resume. But maybe they have a better resume because their daddy corrupted someone or because their brother went to a same school and they went through one of these eligibility programs for siblings and they may not have actually deserved that.
And so what I finally realized, and that the reason why we call the book Meritocracy is to point out that, look, you need… meritocracy is something that we, most of us, agree is the right thing to do, but it needs to be implemented properly. You need to measure inclusion, meaning the experiences the company creates and therefore the opportunities. And you need to measure merit, meaning how the company evaluates the work product of different employees.
So even if you’re completely fair in evaluating work product, if you’ve created unequal opportunities because hey, I’m giving you a 10-year-old laptop but I’m giving him a brand new laptop, and lo and behold, he’s programming faster than you are. Or I’m giving you a small little market where there are very few clients and I’m giving that person a much bigger market with a lot of bigger clients, then duh, you’re going to get different results, but you’ve created unequal opportunities.
And so that’s what the second book is all about. It’s about recognizing that we’re building on the knowledge of what we mean by inclusion. Recognizing that when we measure inclusion, we’re really measuring equality of opportunities, and now we need to measure the other side of it, which is that how can we tell whether promotions, compensation, project assignments are actually done independently of characteristics like your gender, your race, your personal connections or your social status.
And so that’s why I am so excited about the new book coming out because A, it introduces a new measure, so now we have diversity, we have inclusion, and we have merit, which is very closely linked to what I was calling equity before, and I’m hoping that it will get rid of this polarization that is really harming everybody because I really want to show people that we’re talking about the same thing.
We’re each making assumptions. Those assumptions are tacit, and as I like to say, the road to hell is paved with tacit assumptions. And so I’m hoping that the book will not only provide something very tangible and a guide on how to manage your talent, but also how to get rid of this infuriating and very damaging polarization that we’re seeing.
Alison Jones: And you are in an unusual situation here. It’s not unique because language accretes baggage, right? It’s a term become, it’s everybody’s using it and then the next day you can’t use it again because you know we’ve moved on. But it’s happened in ridiculous pace in this space.
So how do, I guess what’s your relationship to language? How do you listen for it? How do you try and take the emotion out of it? What, sort of, do you do when you are deliberately writing something that you want people to read rather than just deciding whether they’re going to read it or not based on what the language you’re using.
Paolo Gaudiano: So that’s a brilliant question. And recently I had an instinctual way of doing it. And I read an article that talks about this idea of gateway words. And what these people argue is that when you want to make a concept known, there are basically two almost opposite ways of choosing words in a way that is going to be very effective, that will stick in people’s minds.
One way is that you use words that are neutral and you define them so clearly. That it becomes very obvious, this is what you mean when you say it, for example, when I say inclusion is what you do, I am very careful in the book to define exactly what I mean by inclusion and also exactly what I don’t mean by inclusion.
The other kind of gateway word is when people say, when you use a word that is really uncommon and it stands out in people’s mind, and there are times when you have to do that. And, in fact, one interesting example is that in the explanation of meritocracy in the new book, I was trying to think about from a systems perspective the relationship between an individual and a company. And what I realize is that we sometimes talk about achievements, accomplishments, effort, but all of those words have different meanings for different people. In fact, it’s funny because with my co-author one day, we used to say that you should be, your outcomes should be, based on your efforts.
And she says, somebody that has, let’s say neurodiversity, it may be a much bigger effort for them to do something, right. And so, we started to use different words, and one of the things that we realized is that a very important aspect of the relationship between a person and the company is that in the company you have what we now call standing. We were very careful to use a super neutral, very uncommon word. What do we mean by standing? If I were to look up in a guide and say, what is Paolo’s position in this company? He’s got this title, this salary, he’s been working for this many years. So I think of standing as being a very very sterile definition of where you are.
That’s what the company controls. I cannot choose my title. I cannot choose my salary. The company sets my standing. And the key of meritocracy is to understand whether the actions that I take are reviewed and evaluated by the company to reward me by changing my standing in a way that is independent of what I look like.
So in that case, I used another word and I struggled. I was like Chat GPT, and Cynthia and I, and by the way, Cynthia and I come from two very different backgrounds in many different ways. She’s black, I’m white, she’s a woman, I’m a man. There’s a lot of other ways, we’ve had very different, she grew up in the United States. I grew up in Italy. And talking to her has been phenomenal because we literally pick on each other’s language. She’ll say words and I’m like, you can’t say it that way because if you say it that way, people from my tribe, the white guys, will get very sensitive about it. And then I’ll say something, she’s okay, when you say it that way, people like me feel icky about it.
And so, in the book we were very careful to define things super, super clearly. And so language to me is very important because language by its own nature is very sloppy and it can be very ambiguous. And so as a scientist, I love being as careful with words as I possibly can be.
Alison Jones: And this is Cynthia Overton, we should say, who’s your co-author on Meritocracy?
Paolo Gaudiano: Cynthia Overton, an amazing, she and I have been friends for years and to give credit where all credit is due, if it wasn’t because of her, it would not have written the second book because months ago she started to say, you really need to write this stuff down. You really to write it.
And the reality is, it has changed dramatically because of her. It’s been a phenomenal relationship in how we wrote the book. I’ve never co-authored a book before. This was a completely different experience that, for book writers would be fascinating, just to see the different ways that people collaborate.
But it’s been an incredible experience that I can tell you there is no way that either of us alone would’ve been able to do what’s coming out, next year, next June.
Alison Jones: It’s a lovely sense of, because you’ve written a lot on your own, you’ve written academic papers, you’ve written lots of blogs, and obviously Measuring Inclusion on your own. It’s really interesting that you’re having that experience of co-authoring. Now I’ve never done that. I’m a little bit jealous. One day I will do that too.
But I really want to ask you, Paolo, because I’m so conscious of time, I always ask my guests for their single best tip. So if somebody’s setting out on this journey of writing a book, either alone or in collaboration, what would you, if they take nothing else away from this conversation, what would you want them to remember?
Paolo Gaudiano: I would say, and I’m not trying to kiss up here, do not underestimate everything that goes into writing the book other than the writing itself. Because from cover design to pagination, to building the index to, and probably the most important thing is how do you promote the book? How do you advertise it? How do you choose the words in the subtitle so that you’re, and looking at, who is your audience, exactly.
I think that’s the, probably the two biggest mistakes that I made when I started to think about the book. One was this is a book for everybody. Everybody’s going to love my book, and I know that you pick on that. You were one that really made me realize this case. Number one, pick your audience. And then number two is I thought, oh, I’m going to, I can write really fast, I can write really well. Once I’m done writing, it’ll be easy. And the bulk of the work comes after you finished your first draft and having an operational team behind you, that can tell you what to do and how to do it can make an enormous difference.
Because the best idea in the world, if you don’t have the right platform, if you don’t produce it properly, it’s just not going to go anywhere. So that would be my advice to people is work with somebody that you trust. Find somebody, not just on the writing, but actually on all of the procedural stuff. To me, that’s by far the single most important thing that anyone can do, at least that I did.
Alison Jones: Yes, it is, it’s funny, isn’t it? Publishing is such a, and it’s why we love it, it’s a blend of this rigorous sort of editorial, ideological, what are we trying to achieve here and what fonts are we going to be using? It’s just the sort of, the little details and stuff, which the operational piece it’s all… it’s not rocket science, which you do, we don’t. But it is not trivial either. Brilliant.
And I also always ask my guests for a recommendation, and I’m really intrigued. What are you going to recommend that we read Paolo?
Paolo Gaudiano: I’m going to recommend something that is a little bit, maybe controversial is not the right thing, but it’s a difficult book, but one that has profoundly influenced me. There’s a woman whose name is Ijeoma Oluo who has written a couple of books that are really all about race in the workplace and the… she’s written, and I’m going to recommend two books because she wrote both of them in the span of a couple of years.
The first one is So You Want to Talk About Race and then the second one is called a Mediocre. The second one was a punch in the gut because it made me realize as a white man, as a privileged human being, and it doesn’t have to be necessarily about being white men, but we all have privilege and we don’t realize how much that influences how we perform in the workplace and her books both of them were eye-opening. I would say even if you don’t care about diversity, equity, and inclusion, just understanding about human relations and how people interact with each other and what a profound impact, even a casual little word can have on the success of somebody else that’s next to you.
I felt also that a lot of those gems that I got from the books were written primarily in the context of the workplace, but many of them could also apply in being a decent human being. Whether you’re making friends somewhere, whether you live in a place like me, I live in Harlem, in New York, where I am a minority from a racial perspective.
And yes. So those are the two books, and they’re both by Ijeoma Oluo . Again, highly recommend them. I think those were very eye-opening.
Alison Jones: Great recommendations and I’m aware of them, but I haven’t yet read them, so thank you. That’s a really good recommendation. I’m going to add to my to be read pile and Paolo, if people want to find out more about you, more about Meritocracy, more about Measuring Inclusion, where should they go?
Paolo Gaudiano: I would say first place, if you go to aleria.tech, so it’s A-L-E-R-I-A-T-E-C-H. That’s the website of my company. That’s where we do the measuring inclusion. And now we also talk about measuring merit. We’re updating the website as we speak, but we already have some of that language there.
LinkedIn, my name is not that common, so if you look for Paolo Gaudiano, I’m going to be the first one that pops up and that’s a good place to get a sense of where I’ve been and what I’ve done.
And then of course, if you go to the Practical Inspiration website and you look up my book on Measuring Inclusion, that’s a good place to find the book or you can also find in other places where books are sold online.
I would say those are probably the top three places to look for me.
Alison Jones: Or indeed in store. I was in Foyles on Monday evening, and there was your book sitting on the shelf, so that was very pleasing.
Paolo Gaudiano: I hope you took a picture because I’ve yet to see my book on a shelf somewhere.
Alison Jones: Oh, do you know I didn’t. Now I feel terrible. So there was a lot of Practical Inspiration titles in there. I didn’t take pictures of them all. I’m so sorry. But anyway, trust me, it was there.
That’s right. I’m still sitting with your award that I picked up on your behalf at the Business Book Awards. That was fun going up on the stage. But you are not Paolo Gaudiano. I was like no I’m not. No.
Paolo Gaudiano: I wish I could been there, I wish could have been there, but thank you for holding on.
Alison Jones: It would’ve been great. It was a really fun night.
Congratulations again and thank you so much for your time today, Paolo.
It’s been brilliant talking to you.
Paolo Gaudiano: Thank you, Alison. Likewise.
