‍Katelin Holloway, HOST: You're listening to All Hands, a podcast brought to you by Lattice, where People Strategy is Business strategy. I'm your host, Katelin Holloway.

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper, GUEST: We started to have conversations around the topic of pay parity and how that seemed like a natural area of focus for us to transition into. And not only was it gonna support our initiatives around diversity and inclusion specifically as it related to women, but that it generally made good business sense.

Katelin Holloway: This week on the podcast, we dive into one of my favorite topics, pay parity. The concept is simple, right? Of course, we want everyone working the same job in the same location to be making roughly the same amount of money, right? Easy <laugh>, but the reality is far more complicated than that.

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: There were also these practices and processes that we have as a company that helped to sort of support how you get to these paid decisions. Really starting to evaluate and look at those processes and start to ask Garel like, are these fair? Are these equitable?

Katelin Holloway: Only 32% of companies even analyze pay gap by gender, let alone race or other marginalized identities. But don't be discouraged. There's some great examples out there we can learn from. Adobe implemented a pay parity model back in 2018. Five years later, their 28,000 employees continue to benefit from the standardized approach to pay. I sit down with Rosemary, Ariana Kiper, vice President of Total Rewards at Adobe. She paved the way for pay parity at the company and continues to update, innovate, and adjust this model. And by sharing her learnings with us, I'm confident that we can bring more organizations into the Pay parity club. Rosemary, welcome to all hands.

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Thanks so much Katelin. I'm super excited to be here today.

Katelin Holloway: We are thrilled to have you on the show and we are talking about one of my all-time favorite topics, pay parity. This is a topic and something that uh, like I said, most of our listeners care very deeply about and they're anxious to get up and running within their own organizations. And unfortunately we're still not seeing as many companies subscribe to this commitment as I would like to see. But the work you've done is exemplary and I'm very, very hopeful that through our conversation today will help enable more people teams to get their work started. So before we jump into all the practicalities of this work, I think it's important to set the stage a little bit. Why did you decide to prioritize pay equity at Adobe?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Yeah, yeah, I think it's a really great question, Katelin, and, and I think it sort of takes us back to some of the guiding principles that were initially established by our founders, John Warnock and Chuck Gki. So when they started the company, there were three guiding principles by which we needed to operate the organization as the first was really that people are the most important asset that we have as a company. The second being that good ideas come from everywhere and that third, if you build a good company where you would want to work yourself, then you're likely to have really positive outcomes, right? And I think, you know, 40 years later we still, you know, align ourselves to those guiding principles. And as an organization that tends to be very people focused, it's always been important for us to recognize and celebrate our employees contributions to Adobe's overall success.

And so, you know, as we started to have conversations and and sort of build our journey around having a more diverse and inclusive environment, um, we started to have conversations around the topic of pay parity and how that seemed like a natural area of focus for us to transition into. And not only was it gonna support our initiatives around diversity and inclusion specifically as it related to women, but that it generally made good business sense and it seemed like, you know, a topic that would be an easy one for us to explore. Now we didn't know what the implications of that were gonna be and I can sort of walk you through that journey, but it started off as a conversation and, and one of the things that I will say is we had a lot of executive support as well. You know, the C E O and the chief people officer at the time for Adobe also had a, a vested interest in really wanting to support these initiatives that we had. And so I think that also sort of paved the work for myself and my team to sort of be able to do the work that we needed to, to be able to do.

Katelin Holloway: I really appreciate you sharing all of that context because I think that every organization has a different starting place and something in doing my research on, on the work that you have done and how you decided to undertake it within the organization, it really started with listening, right? It really started with the conversation and defining. And so again, as I've said, I really want our listeners to be able to use this conversation as a guide or a blueprint to begin this critical work within their own organizations. And so if you can take us back to the very beginning, the way I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the very first thing you all did was to define pay parity at Adobe. Is that right?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: That's correct. That's correct. Because one of the things that we sort of realized as the conversation began was that the interpretation of pay parity differed. Yep. As you talked to store to different stakeholders and, and the way in which people sort of talked about it was also different. And so we wanted to make sure that as we focused on this topic, that we were all aligned on how we wanted to define it. The other thing that was sort of interesting is, is it was starting to become a very hot topic in the market as well too. A lot of companies, while they were exploring and having conversations around the paper, there wasn't lot of work that had been done in this space. And so sort of standardization or definitions around what pay parity means and how people would approach it in a methodol like none of that existed, right?

And so we were sort of in this exploratory phase of, gosh, you know, we're gonna have to define this for ourselves. So we decided to start with the definition, which was what does pay parity sort of mean to Adobe? So there was sort of getting the same common language around how we speak to pay parity, but then there was also what outcome are we sort of looking to get out of this in terms of how we define pay parity At Adobe, it was really important that you compare apples to apples. For us, it's really evaluating employees that are in the same jobs and locations, um, and ensuring that they're paid fairly with one another regardless of their gender, regardless of their ethnicity. So a big sort of component of ours is, is looking at like for like, and for us the definition around like for like it was really around the job, the level and the location, sort of making sure that you're comparing those buckets.

Katelin Holloway: Ithink that that is so important and I really appreciate that you're calling out more than gender. I think that a lot of companies, for example, the first time I, I tried to introduce I was successful but it was, I will use the word try because to your point, this was not common practice. And the first, the first time I made my attempt at creating pay parity within an organization was back in 2011. And so there was literally nothing other than the benchmark of gender. And what I discovered in the work and and why I say I tried was because intersectionality has such an important role to play as we are building these programs. But if you have never done this within an organization, starting with those basics first around gender is crucial and then taking that next lens to say what about women of color and how does that translate between the different communities?

And that's just one example, but they're ones that we can really, really easily point to now with data because the research is now there. We know that Hispanic women for example, make 57 cents on the dollar compared to white men. Black women make 64 cents, whereas white women make 79 cents. But back, and this sounds so silly to say back in the day, but I mean even in 2018 that research was not as readily available. And so, and certainly in 2011 when I took my first crack at it, it was gender and that was an important step. They're building blocks, right as we grow, yeah. The work and as we share this work and as we open source this work to really make sure that everyone is looking at all of the data points to create the best program for their organization. So after you define what you believe is pay parity and then you define your end state, what are our goals here? I believe that your team then defined the jobs that people were actually doing. So how did you approach that step around the jobs?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for raising that Katelin. Cuz I will tell you that was an unexpected consequence. So when we started our conversation and we were talking about hey sort of the end goal here is to reduce or mitigate sort of the gap that existed in pay, that was fundamentally what we were trying to get at. And originally it started to your point is is it was an evolution for us. It started very myopic from the sense of we focused on women in the US right? We figured that piece out and then we started to expand, it became women or gender outside of the US and then eventually we added sort of the different underrepresented groups. And so it's been sort of this building of blocks that you sort of alluded to. And so while we were having the conversation, it was like, okay, end goal is really to reduce or mitigate the gap in pay.

We knew that's where we wanted to go. Then it was like let's define pay because a lot of people interpret that in a lot of different ways. And so what do we mean by that? But then it was kind of like, okay, now let's get started and do the analysis. And as we started to get into the analysis, what we realized was, oh gosh, the purpose of the exercise was like for like to make sure that we were comparing similar roles. What we realized was that the job architecture that we had in the company, the jobs people were matched into weren't always necessarily indicative of what they were actually doing. And so we were like, well gosh, if we start to base all of our analysis on this data, which isn't of the highest integrity, we're just gonna get garbage at the other end, right?

Yep. And so like this whole other body of work resurrected itself that we had not anticipated having to do, which was this job architecture exercise. And it was really working across the company with you know, leaders and our business partners to really get in there and make sure that people were actually mapped to the right job codes in the right locations, reflecting the right levels that they were at so that we had a higher level of integrity in the data. So then when we did the analysis, we would feel more comfort. So that was totally unexpected. It was the right thing and I think it helped us in yeah, many other areas too. Like it had some great consequences just in terms of like the level of education we had to do with both our managers and our employees and getting crystal clear and providing some more transparency on how and why we do that. And so it was great but it definitely ended up pivoting our timelines in terms of you know, what we thought we were originally gonna be able to deliver. And,

Katelin Holloway: And it also, I mean to your point, I'm getting excited because I know that feeling of like, oh this is the best reason in the world to push a timeline, right? You know, we do the work that we do and and we do our very best to set our OKRs or our KPIs and we set realistic goals and timelines. But when you unearth, it's like anthropology, right? When you unearth new information, when you find something, when you make a discovery within your work and say, oh my goodness, this thing is going to have an impact not just on this particular job that I set out to do, but job architecture, I don't care if you're five people big or 5,000 people big or 50,000 people, big job architecture impacts recruiting, it impacts performance management. It impacts rewards and recognition. It impacts, yeah compensation and how all of those things apply. And I say that again, I'm smiling because one, because

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: You've been there, I've been

Katelin Holloway: There and this work is so good and it's so exciting and I think that you know that you love what you do when you are able to geek out on these things. And now this is a question you may not want to share and it's okay if you don't, but, and if you recall even, do you remember how far out you had to push your timeline? How much additional work did that push? Yeah,

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: We ended up having to deal almost two years cuz it was a massive re-architecting. So Adobe's process, um, just to give you a little bit of more insight and I'm happy to share this stuff, we're pretty public about it is, is so companies apply different sort of architecture to their jobs. Some use grades where you take an amalgamation of different roles that are valued the same and you plump them into sort of structures or some companies take a market discrete market approach. And so we take that approach, which is every single job at every level in every location within our company has a range associated with it. So we manage a lot of salary structures. So for us, and that's something that's sort of embedded, I don't know if it's because we're a technology company with lots of engineers but they love the proximity to market data. And so we knew that we were not going to be able to sort of shift that. But in going in and really assessing where people were relative to these thousands of structures that we had, it just took time. Took time and diligence. And so it ended up delaying it for almost two years.

Katelin Holloway: I really, really appreciate you sharing that only because again for our audience, this is building empathy and compassion for our work and understanding to feel seen and to feel heard when you're like, oh no, I unearthed this nugget and this is new work that we get to do. And it is worth it though that investment, that two year push on the timeline on that deadline worth it, worth it. And for what it's worth, I also very much subscribe to the, the same practice of going to market. And yes it makes it more complicated but it really, when you were having those conversations, when you were looking in the whites of the eyes of your employees and you were describing your logic and you were unpacking it and you were being as transparent as your organization chooses to be, it's right there looking back at you and you're like, this is why we do it this

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Way. Yeah. Yeah. And I will say I think on some level we all knew going into this because it was sort of a path that had not yet been paved that we were probably gonna take some twists and turns along the way. You know, especially in our sector, everybody sort of wants everything yesterday. Oh totally. And so it can be a challenge sometimes, right? But we did have a fair amount of support and and I think a lot of that was is people sort of understood, they understood that in order to get this right we need to make sure that we were structured in the right way and that we were sort of doing the right comparisons.

Katelin Holloway: Absolutely. So you started with your shared language and making some very clear definitions around around things including your goals. Then you went into your job architecting and you standardized your pay levels, your bands, all of that good stuff. What was next? Was it now you were ready to communicate what happened next?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Yeah, so it was a couple of different things that sort of had to happen. So you know, as part of the whole job architecture work, it actually ended up proving to be a really good exercise for us cuz as I alluded to earlier, that required a whole enablement and reeducation to our management as well as our employee population just in terms of how we do structures at Adobe. And as part of that that you know sort of educated people in how we come up with these ranges and how we make decisions around what people are gonna be paid for given the work and the performance that they have. And so there was a lot of lead in that. The infrastructure work really helped us to get to. So once we worked through all of that and we had the structures in place and we'd done all of this education, we were in a position to go out and do some regression analysis, right? And so that part was sort of the easy

Katelin Holloway: Part. I wanna ask you a question I, have you ever heard the term Eli five explain like I'm five, it's an acronym here, so Eli five me on regression analysis. So not every person listening in on the podcast has worked for a larger organization that understands that terminology. Would you mind defining that for

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Us? Yeah, and I don't know that I'll do an eloquent job of it. I probably know how to do the math better than I can explain the math. But what it essentially does is we basically are looking at individuals that are in the same jobs, in the same locations at the same levels. And in our analysis we're looking at trying to explain why a gap exists and there are reasons why pay gap is acceptable, right? And performance is one sort of component. People sort of operate at different performance levels if sometimes tenure depending on sort of a company's culture, environment and experience can sort of play. And so essentially what we're doing is we create a mechanism to identify sort of a pay gap that we get comfortable with, but we sort of say, hey, if you've got anything more than that we need to explain why that difference exists.

And so we sort of would control for these different things and to the extent that we could not explain the reason through one of these control mechanisms, then that became a red flag and identified as somebody who needed to be adjusted. And so it's sort of mathematical calculations that can do this level of analysis for you. But the idea is really, you know, you set a limit in terms of what you're comfortable with in terms of the pay gap disparity and then anything outside those boundaries you've gotta try to explain Thank you for that. And if you can't explain it, it's a problem. Yeah, it is a problem. <laugh> then the big next topic of discussion for us became, so while we as an executive team were really aligned around trying to address this problem, what we didn't yet know was is what's gonna be the outcome of the analysis?

What are the financial implications of this? And so there was a lot of conversation around like how transparent do we wanna be about the work that we're doing in because there are all of these downstream implications to this and what if we're not able to address it all at one time or fix everything? You have to be very careful in terms of the expectations that you set. So we had a lot of conversation around that. But what I love about Adobe is we tend to be sort of a transparent company. And so where we landed was is look, it's okay to share people what we're trying to do and it's also okay to share that we might not be able to dress this all immediately. That this has probably been a building up right of paid disparity that's happened like over years of hiring. And so, you know, let's just be transparent about that and talk about that and talk about the realities of what it is and how much money it will take to sort of address all of this.

And so it was really good to get that. And so I think from the very beginning it set a tone with our employee population that we're sort of committed to addressing this and, and we sort of shared that like we're not gonna have all the answers right away and there's gonna be, you know, things that, you know, we may or may not be able to act on immediately. At the time I was kind of like, oh crap, I really didn't know what the outcome was gonna be. And so we ended up, and, and again, you know, I'm trying to remember from way back in 2018, but if we sort of think about the analysis that we did, it was the US only, we were probably at least at half our size of today, which you know would put us somewhere probably around 10,000, 12,000 employees and that was globally and then in the US we were probably, you know, 60 or 70% of that.So it ended up being that there was a, I think a three to 5% of our population that was actually impacted where we identified red flags that were that is pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. And so percentage wise it wasn't high. Now it did cost a lot of money and so, you know, for very few people it ended up being a, a really big price tag. But again the good news was is and, and this is where I will say for companies, right, it's sort of different. We happened to be in a sector of the business where our profit margins are probably a little bit bigger than other areas. And so we had some ability to distribute some funding that was committed in other areas to help address this problem and we had sort of the executive sponsorship to be able to do that, right? But I think that's sort of the biggest one is, is once you get through the analysis and you start to think about like what's this gonna cost that ends up being the biggest sort of obstacle, right?

Is how do you do that? And then I wanna say in in 2020 we sort of committed to adding India and between India and the US it really was about 80% of our employee population that we were capturing. But what we sort of didn't realize was is then as you started to get out into more countries, the exercise started to get, you know, even more cumbersome because the level of of rigor, the sample size of employees became smaller. And so it definitely got more complicated as we got outside of the US but it was a bit of a relief to have the problem not be at least as large as I had anticipated in my own head as to what it might be.

Katelin Holloway: I'm doing the math here. You're saying that you rolled this out in 2018, but you also shared that you had to push your deadline by two years, which means you started working on this in 2016 and means you probably were thinking about this and and you know from your past experiences. So like

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: We did.

Katelin Holloway: Yep. This is incredibly large body of work and I wanna transition over to what does this look like now? But before we jump there, I wanna give a little shout out. We had Rika tulsi on an earlier episode of the podcast. Yeah. And I know that she interviewed you for her book Inclusion on Purpose and she commended you for your commitment for doing the hard work specifically for the benefit of D E I. And I wanna share a quick quote.Ruchika Tulshyan:Really what I found is at the core of it, and I was really surprised by this, was someone willing to say, we're gonna have to do this and it's really hard and we're gonna make mistakes and we just cannot afford to shy away from the difficult work often. I remember basically the person I interviewed at Adobe said something to the effect of what's hard about this work is the more light you shine on the issue, the more challenges you're going to be uncovering. It's almost like the work never gets done.

Katelin Holloway: I love the commitment that our community has to making change for all of the right reasons. And those, those include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. Those include just your general value set of valuing your people and it also includes business outcomes. This work is not just for the fun of it because it is not for the faint of heart and it is not for for people who are just here to, to take a box and move along.

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Yeah, of course. And you know, she was sort of spot on and we sort of with this exercise of pay parity and in a lot of ways, while it was hard, it was probably one of the easier sort of areas to focus in on. But what we learned in part of this journey too is there's a whole process and machine that sort of is interrelated to pay parity, right? There's your hiring process, there are sort of your promotional processes is internally. And so what we started to sort of realize, well pay parity was sort of the easiest outcome from the sense of there was a gap we were trying to reduce or eliminate the gap, right? But embedded in all of that, there were also these practices and processes that we have as a company that helped to sort of support how you get to these paid decisions.Really starting to evaluate and look at those processes and start to ask Elles like, are these fair? Are these equitable? We started to realize, oh god, there's like tons of opportunity over here too. And so that's what sort of made this a really hard exercise and continues Yeah. To be, you know, yeah it hasn't ended for us. It sort of continues. To your point earlier, I think today the pay parity piece of it is a better oiled machine than when we started this back in 2018. I will say it's become much more part of our rigor and process at Adobe. We're looking at this sort of annually, but we are continuing to have conversations. So full transparency, you know, as we talk about pay parity right now we're talking about total target cash, which in a technology company is probably 50 to 60% of your overall compensation, right?There's a big whole equity component that we sort of talk about as a company and we're not doing pay parity analysis at that level. But you know, there's a lot of debate and conversation around whether that should be part of the conversation. So I see this sort of as an iterative, we're gonna continue to sort of evolve. You talked a little bit earlier, Katelin about, or you sort of referenced the standardization. What's hard about this is, is like there is no standardization. Like, and I've continued to say like, this would almost be easier if we could just legislate some of this stuff and all agree on a process and approach and just all get behind. So it's fabulous that, that we're sort of having that conversation but like there's a lot more conversation and action to be had. And so, you know, I personally am excited to be part of a company that's looking to sort of create that path. I just hope we can get more and more companies on board. Cause I do think at some point in time some sort of standardization around this would would be really great.

Katelin Holloway: Well, I could not agree more. And I think the only way we do that is by highlighting and showcasing the work that we're all doing. Because to your point, th this is ever evolving and so, so tell me what does this look like five years later? How are your employees responding?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: I think we've had a lot of positive reception around this. So I think, you know, people always say sort of like prove it and it's really hard to sort of the numbers that sort of show you from an attraction and a retention perspective that this is necessarily the reason why we're able to bring people in or we're able to get them to stay. But what I do know is we are regularly recognized through different publications that our employees get to vote on about some of the great work that we do. We do engagement surveys internally and while pay always comes up for a reason as to why people consider leaving the company, it's never about the quality of how pay is determined, right? Our, our data is more around, hey, do I think I can get paid more somewhere else? So I think we get a lot of this sort of sentiment from our employees around the value that this sort of brings.It fosters a level of trust. And when I sort of started, you know, alluding to early on, like we literally had a group of data scientists, um, as my team was preparing to embark on regression analysis that were like, Hey, we're happy to look at your methodology and approach and make sure that it sound and it's, you know, and they actually did, I mean we didn't let them play with the actual data, but we did sort of let them have conversations with us and and explore sort of our algorithms and the formulas and the things. And so it sort of, I think just created this level of trust that we were trying to do the right thing. And so I think the outcome has, has been really great for us. In the end. Do do I think we have some greater opportunities? Yeah, I talked a little bit about equity before and, and that's a big part of our compensation.We need to sort of continue to iterate on that. The other thing that I will be fully transparent and candid about is, you know, with the level of hiring that we do in this company and you know, now's probably not a great environment, but if we sort of look back at the last five to 10 years, we do a lot of hiring on an annualized basis and that's a lot of new people that you're bringing into the system. And so every time you're sort of doing the annual analysis, like it changes the output. And one of the things that we started to see is because you're dealing with this very competitive market, right? And, and sometimes you're having to do like really crazy offers, it was starting to have an impact on the internal parity stuff. And so our single biggest driver that we found year after year of doing this analysis is the hiring element of it.And so, you know, the conversations that we've been having is wouldn't it be great so that we don't create all this work on the backend of having to do all these adjustments and alignments. Like if you could do some sort of analysis on the front end as you're contemplating bringing in people, well how do you have a mechanism to identify whether an offer that you're putting out there is gonna create a pay parity issue for you or not? And so those are the types of conversations and and we've been having conversations with external partners to see can somebody help us solve for that? Because that is one of biggest sort of challenges that we experience is as a compensation team we're not involved in every offer that that gets put out there and we can't in a scalable way do analysis for every single offer goes out there.So, so are there technologies or solutions out there that maybe could help us scale that side of it? So I think positive reception in terms of what we've heard from the employee population in terms of what we're doing. I think we get great recognition in lots of different things, very positive results from an engagement rate. But you know, employees are great cuz they do holistic accountable and they don't believe the journey is done either <laugh>. Yeah. And they constant you to push and challenge us in areas that we haven't yet achieved parity on. And so, so that's all

Katelin Holloway: Good. I appreciate that. And I one it sounds like the venture capitalist in me saying there's a business idea in there, and I hope that one of our listeners is like, today is the day I make the leap and go build some HR tech because I would buy the crap outta that <laugh>. And then two, just to share a reflection of scale, I think that there are a few different ways to mitigate the offer impact. That's what I call it. It's the offer impact. Yeah. Because in different organizations, recruiting is an entirely separate arm. In other organizations they live under the same umbrella and they have goals that tie them together. So there's a little bit more accountability. Are you ready for rapid fire?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: I am.

Katelin Holloway: All right, let's line 'em up. We've got a few quick questions. I will give you an easy one to start and then they get progressively more challenging. So let's talk about Adobe. Adobe is obviously a very creative company. What is your favorite way to express your creative self? Is it regression analysis? <laugh>? No,

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: It is not. Storytelling. Storytelling.

Katelin Holloway: I love that. And how do you express that in your life?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: I love to tell stories. I am full of sort of analogies in terms of like explaining how we do things or what we do. I also enjoy writing quite a bit. I sort of keep a journal and so for me it's really sort of documenting and narrating. I

Katelin Holloway: Love that. Okay. Switching gears slightly, but this work as we've talked about is really, really hard. What is your favorite way to unwind after a busy or challenging day?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: I like to go for a walk. So I'm a big walker slash hiker and one of the things that I love to do is put on my headsets head out the door. And oftentimes I listen to a variety of different podcasts, so on for walks or hikes.

Katelin Holloway: What is one thing on your desk that you see that brings you joy?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Oh, on my desk. A picture of my family. Perfect

Katelin Holloway: Answer. When was the last time you were deeply proud of something you've accomplished?

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Uh, probably a week ago. So my son just graduated from the University of Michigan and he is going to be an employed and fully contributing member of society and we consider this and he's a very good kid, <laugh>. So we consider this to be like, amazing.

Katelin Holloway: Congratulations, mama. That is a huge accomplishment. <laugh>, congratulations to you and your son and your family. Thank you. And again, just thank you so much for joining us here on the show today. Thank you so much for sharing all about your work, your team's work. I genuinely hope that our listeners walk away from this ready to take pen to paper and bring this to life in their organization. So Rosemary, thank you so very much for being generous with us. Please, please keep leading authentically.

Rosemary Arriada-Keiper: Thank you so much, Katelin. I really appreciate your guys having me. This was really fun.

Katelin Holloway: Thank you so very much for joining me on this week's episode of All Hands. I'm your host, Katelin Holloway. Follow all hands wherever you get your podcast so you never miss an episode. And if you like the show, tell a friend about us or give us a shout on social. This podcast is brought to you by Lattice. Learn more about how Lattice helps companies deliver great business results with smart people. [email protected]. Find us on Twitter at Lattice hq. All Hands is produced by Latice in partnership with pod people. Special thanks to our production team, Christine Swore, Annette Cardwell, Rachel King, Amy Machado, Hannah Petterson, Danielle Roth, David Swick, Carter Wogan, and Michael Aquino. I'll see you next time on All Hands. Until then, my friends, please keep leading authentically.