Psychological Safety in Leadership

In this episode of the DevOps Sauna, Darren Richardson and Pinja Kujala discuss the concept of psychological leadership and how to identify psychological challenges in the workplace and implement solutions for them to improve work, processes, and morale in your organization.

[Pinja] (0:03 - 0:10)

It is not easy to innovate in a place where you feel threatened all the time.

[Darren] (0:14 - 0:22)

Welcome to the DevOps Sauna, the podcast where we deep dive into the world of DevOps, platform engineering, security, and more as we explore the future of development.

[Pinja] (0:22 - 0:32)

Join us as we dive into the heart of DevOps, one story at a time. Whether you're a seasoned practitioner or only starting your DevOps journey, we're happy to welcome you into the DevOps Sauna.

[Darren] (0:37 - 0:43)

Welcome back to the Sauna. We're here again today with Pinja.

[Pinja] (0:43 - 0:46)

Hello, how are you doing, Darren?

[Darren] (0:47 - 0:53)

I'm doing as well as can be expected for an early week afternoon in January in Finland.

[Pinja] (0:53 - 1:09)

We've had a very interesting weather during the past week or so. During the weekend, we got, I think, 30 centimeters or a foot of snow, depending on where in the world you are and which system you're using. And now it is going to be melting away.

[Darren] (1:09 - 1:35)

Yeah, and then, as happens, it will get colder again, and everything will freeze. And because I'm like not a native Finn, I don't have the preternatural ice sense that most Finns have. I see people out running and walking on all of this basically sheet ice and I'm just like, nope, I need shoe spikes and trekking poles to even step outside.

So yeah, I'm hibernating for the next few weeks.

[Pinja] (1:36 - 1:38)

Okay, so you do like the bears do.

[Darren] (1:38 - 1:42)

Yeah, pretty much. Bears and security nerds. We don't leave our apartments during the winter.

[Pinja] (1:43 - 2:00)

Thinking about the seasonal affective disorder, this is a very rough period of time from the weather perspective. And if we think about us as people, we do tend to kind of withdraw, we tend to hibernate and that can also happen in a workplace.

[Darren] (2:01 - 2:32)

I mean, I think we saw that weird situation in what, 2022, 2023, that I think they tried to brand as quiet quitting when it was very much working to specification. So it's like, I think it's important for us to take some time to discuss how people are feeling. And it's a topic that I think we've covered before, but I don't think we talk about often enough.

So, let's talk about psychological safety.

[Pinja] (2:32 - 3:12)

Yeah. And when we talk about psychological safety, at least to me, it means that I am comfortable enough to feel vulnerable in where I work. I feel comfortable enough to show that I'm not perfect and it feels to me that it's okay to show that I make errors as well.

That's what psychological safety is to me. I will not be reprimanded, for example, for showing these signs of, and I'm going to use quote marks again, weaknesses, but instead, as an organization, when we aim for psychological safety, we should be looking into resolving these situations without blaming anybody.

[Darren] (3:13 - 4:57)

Yeah. The vulnerability is kind of a, I think, kind of a sore point in a lot of organizations. Cause, like, I'm not sure about your experience, but my experience has been all kind of very nerdy, very tech jobs.

And there is, there is at times kind of a toxic and abusive culture revolving around tech, especially when you get to higher levels of tech when you get to people who basically believe that they know everything and think that everyone else needs to as well. And then when you do something like add new staff, new juniors to the mix, there are two ways you can go about it. You can either try and onboard them, try and involve them, try to teach them, or you can leave them on their own and berate them when they make mistakes.

And I think all too often I've seen the latter, like juniors face a very daunting prospect in our business. They are coming into like technology stacks, which are a thousand times more complicated than they were 20 years ago. They're having to deal with security issues, which are a thousand times larger than they were 20 years ago.

They have to deal with programming languages that are like known so much more expansive and so many more of them than they were 20 years ago. And I think that a lot of old-time nerds forget that when they entered the industry, things were a lot simpler, a lot clearer, and they were able to learn kind of gradually and by degrees and slowly over time instead of being dropped on. Here's AWS, have fun.

[Pinja] (4:57 - 6:27)

Yeah, we tend to forget that when, if we take a junior say, so we tend to forget that somebody who's joining the industry, it might be whatever workplace, they're joining the workplace and the workforce, and they might have been learning these things in school and you actually join the workplace and you're perhaps running a business. So there's so many different things that are affecting them. So it's not just that, hey, I did learn AWS in school, so I know this right now.

I know CI/CD pipelines. What happens when you start combining those? So do we expect the junior people, and this might not just be about the age, by the way, so you're just new to the workplace, you're new to the culture and the work itself.

So do we tell them like, why don't you know this already? And that's not the kind of culture and way of working and communicating that encourages anybody to raise their hand when they make errors. And I'm going to say when.

Everybody makes those, so how do we address those situations? Do we want somebody to hold back and not tell that they made an error, which might be actually fatal, and we might be facing some consequences from the customer side or something else, but rather, how do we encourage into this behavior that, please help, something happened, I don't know what to do, and then we can fix it and learn from this. So the experience should always come with this.

[Darren] (6:27 - 7:03)

It's the whole paradox of why being able to admit that you aren't the best is actually a way to build that confidence and build that strength. And the repercussions are something that I don't think people really consider, which is weird given how often we hear about data breaches. Like, if you think about your cybersecurity posture, what kind of employees do you want?

Do you want the person who will stand up and go, okay, I messed this up, here's a big problem? Or do you want the person who will feel threatened and quietly sit on the problem while it gets worse?

[Pinja] (7:04 - 9:17)

Because the fact is that we are going to get these problems, we're going to face bottlenecks and hiccups on the road when we move forward. If we didn't, are we even innovating? Are we even doing anything new?

So that's also this whole paradox of, yes, we need to make mistakes in order to bring something new to the mix. And the fear of humiliation can be extreme for some people. They might have it from a previous organization or their current organization is not supporting, bringing up things.

And we can talk about cultural typologies from Westrum. So, this is a model and typologies that basically categorize organizations into three different categories. So there are the pathological ones, bureaucratic, and generative.

And the difference is how you respond to these situations. So usually, the pathological ones, they're power-oriented, there is not a lot of cooperation. And most importantly, when something happens, the messenger is, so to say, shot, right?

So it is their fault. You brought this up, you made a mistake. And these responsibilities are kind of shared at the same time.

It does not bring this feeling of unity in the organization. So the difference between pathological and bureaucratic is that the bureaucratic is more rule-oriented. It is made perhaps very difficult to bring up these.

The messenger is not being shot, but they're being neglected. So the responsibilities are kind of narrow, and there is usually justice after failure, but exactly that, that we need to find the justice to the situation. Whereas, and categorizing this in a very generic manner, of course, but the generative cultures, they focus on the performance.

And usually the cooperation is high, and you train those messengers. So the studies are showing that when we have the ability to be vulnerable and bring up the mistakes and errors that we have made, it brings the organization together, and it fixes us into bringing better results in the end.

[Darren] (9:18 - 10:26)

So the pathological sounds, it brings to me like a picture of the, we're hearing all these return to office mandates across various companies, like that people are required to be in the office to get the best out of them. And I'm sure there are some people for whom that's true, and offices should be available to those people who want them, but this kind of, it's a power dynamic. It's saying, I do not trust you.

I need visibility on everything you're doing. I need to control you. It's that power dynamic that's like saying, I need you in my direct eye line so that I can admonish you if you're doing something that I don't like.

It's like, it's not trusting anyone in that company. It's not trusting a person to do the job that they're supposed to do. So I can see why it would lead to things like shift responsibilities and, like this failure model that leads to people looking for scapegoats, this kind of Soviet Russian pass it down the line until you can find the right person to blame.

And that doesn't sound like a great model for a business.

[Pinja] (10:26 - 10:27)

No, definitely not.

[Darren] (10:28 - 10:36)

I think that the bureaucratic might also be, unfortunately, where a lot of people sit. And I don't know that that's all that much better.

[Pinja] (10:36 - 11:21)

No, it is not. It might not feel as oppressive as the pathological culture and pathological workplaces. But then again, it is not encouraging anybody to bring up these mistakes or, um, any falls in the systems or, um, Hey, there is something in the process that we can improve, right?

Because there is preaching these gaps is being tolerated. So, cause it's rule oriented, right? So we want the justice to happen and we want to follow the very strict rules.

And it is not so much to say that we don't want to encourage innovation, but that is what's going to happen when we are put into these very tight boxes.

[Darren] (11:22 - 11:49)

So I think what I'm taking away from this is that the idea is to build teams that are performance-oriented. I mean, obviously, there's going to be rules to follow, and there is always a power dynamic of hierarchies, but like we can't do away with those things, but we can say that performance should be the key metric there, not just to follow the rules, not to manipulate with power, but to get the performance out of people.

[Pinja] (11:49 - 11:58)

No. And I fully agree with that. And there is this thing, the term called radical candor.

Have you heard of that before, Darren?

[Darren] (11:58 - 12:04)

Um, I haven't. It's, I mean, I understand what the words mean, but it's not something I've heard of specifically.

[Pinja] (12:05 - 13:46)

The radical candor is about encouraging open and honest and constructive feedback in the workplace. And that does not mean it says in the, in this description as well, that it's honest and constructive, it's open, but it's no, in no ways it's mean. It might be direct, but this can only happen in a workplace where we have high psychological safety, because there is in this radical candor concept, we think about, do we care personally?

And do we challenge directly? If that happens, we enter in the quadrant of this model, we enter the radical candor of place, but we can also care personally, but not be direct. We can ruin things with too much empathy, which is called ruinous empathy in this model, but also we can be obnoxiously aggressive if we lack the personal care of things.

So that is the, the very direct comments, the, I'm just saying how it is, how things are type of giving feedback. Or if we do not challenge and we do not care, we enter into the quadrant called manipulative insincerity, when we just avoid everything. And we have basically resigned from this, this discussion already.

So thinking about how do we achieve good results in a team? We have, I think many studies have established that we need other people and we need diversity around us. So diversity of opinions as well, when it comes to work is always creating better innovations.

So, can that happen if we're not able to be ourselves and bring our opinions to the table?

[Darren] (13:46 - 15:05)

I think what we'll mostly see is this kind of obnoxious aggression, to be honest, it's like a mentality where people are attacking, where they're not being constructive. And I think that would be like a step here is to, whenever you're giving feedback, ask yourself, is this constructive? You can be open, you can be honest, you can be direct, but you have to ask yourself, is this constructive?

Am I telling this person who has made a mistake or that there is a better way to do something? Am I actually instructing this person on their next steps? Or am I just telling them that their current steps are wrong and then leaving them with that?

And I think that's the difference between the obnoxious aggression and the radical idea that you're actually making things better by, I mean, these axes are like challenge directly and care personally, but I'm not sure care personally is even valid. Just consider your impact; consider what is happening from a point of view of the entire company, from performance. Because if you just tell a person, no, that's wrong, and don't tell them what would be right, all you're doing is killing eight hours of their time while they try and figure out what they did wrong.

[Pinja] (15:05 - 15:48)

Yeah, and I think your point here about not just caring personally but is this making an impact would be a really nice amendment. And if you feel that the care personally might be too much for this, perhaps, but to bring it more, make it more actionable, for example, for the organization. And companies like, let's take Pixar, for example, they're quite successful in their line of business, I could say.

And they bring radical candor into their meetings and they have taken that into their ways of working. And they have seen that the vulnerability that, of course, enables the radical candor discussions then fuels creativity and problem solving in their teams and then in the business that they're running.

[Darren] (15:48 - 16:03)

That's interesting. It pivots us to this interesting idea. We talked before about psychological safety on a personal level, but what do you think about the role of leaders as kind of architects for psychological safety?

[Pinja] (16:04 - 17:28)

That's a big one because, from my perspective, it's a leader who leads by example. And now specifically talking about leaders who lead the way and not somebody who can be called a boss, who's mandating things. So a little bit tying back to the Westrum cultures here, but showing by example is a key thing from my perspective, how a leader can be a so-called safety architect to actually cultivate this psychological safety culture because there needs to be some deliberate actions.

Some teams might require a little bit less of these actions, but if you take a team and you find that the psychological safety is not on as high a level as it should be, so what can be done? So basically one of the key examples is to show that you made a mistake yourself and raise your hand and say as a leader, hey, something happened. It was not the desirable outcome because of reasons x, y, and z.

Could somebody please help me to also express the vulnerability from the leader's perspective? I'm not omnipotent. I cannot do everything myself.

Somebody needs to help me, but also the follow-up out of that. What can we learn from this mistake that was made? Do we need to talk to our stakeholders more?

Do we need to implement a security feature into our systems or a security protocol, for example?

[Darren] (17:28 - 18:21)

It seems like blamelessness is the order of the day. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone can cause a problem, and unfortunately, being in the positions we are, we often find ourselves in the situation where a mistake can mean costly downtime.

It can mean reputational damage. It can mean intellectual property loss, or if there's a culture of pointing fingers and saying, okay, we're going to find out who did this and why, that just, that's going to make this, again, puts you in a problematic power dynamic where you have this authoritarian approach to discussion, and I don't think anyone has ever been that willing to criticize or, let's say, work openly in that kind of approach.

[Pinja] (18:22 - 20:14)

Definitely not, and that will kill all the questions. Somebody feeling that I'm not allowed to make myself look stupid by asking those questions when, in fact, those questions might lead into better results, and we might find a hole in our plan, for example. In my previous job, I made a mistake.

I made many, but one of them has really ingrained into my brain. We were making changes to a system. It was a database change, and I thought I, as the driver for this change, that I had taken everybody into consideration.

All the stakeholders and everybody had been heard, and we communicated this change very well. Lo and behold, we had not, in fact, and we created this. It was not a big mess, but it created some confusion amongst a lot of people, and we learned that, hey, please record the sessions that you're having.

Please have this quality and question and answer session so people can actually invite others. Then my team leader at the time, when we went into the team meeting, he said that, “hey, so somebody in this team made a mistake, and this happened. I don't want to name any names so that there is no blame culture, so that this happened, and this is what we learned.”

What I felt at the time was like, no, I'm going to raise my hand and say, “By the way, that was me” so that anybody who has any questions can ask me questions about it, and it is more personal. We feel that how it was actually made is not just some distant error that happened. In that team, I know that my manager was trying to guard me from being blamed, but I felt already then that there was psychological safety for me in this team to express this error that was made.

I still remember this 10 years later.

[Darren] (20:14 - 20:35)

I guess that would be the difference between the bureaucratic and the generative, like the idea of trying to shield the person who has done wrong, as written by policy, compared to the generative idea of, no, it was me. I feel okay saying that. Let's discuss how it happened and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

[Pinja] (20:36 - 21:12)

In the team that I’m working at the moment, when I joined, I was introduced to this concept of shredding to pieces with love. We're in consulting business, and we do a lot of materials for internal purposes and for our customers as well. We do a lot of guides and models on the topics that we work with.

I was shown this habit of sharing whatever you had. It might be in a laughable stage at that time, but please share it with the others, and they're going to shred that to pieces, but they're going to do it with love. You're going to get the comments, and this was an example of this radical candor that we talked about earlier.

[Darren] (21:13 - 22:34)

We actually had something similar when we talked to Charity Majors, who appeared at one of our previous events. She was saying how it was like a big advantage to fail early, fail often, and fail publicly so that she would always have this feedback loop of figuring out where to go based on the fact that when she did make mistakes, which she said was often towards the start of the platform, then she was knowing how to push forward. She would get that kind of shred to pieces, I guess not with love because they were public things, but it was basically the fortitude to stand with your ideas and have them shredded to make them better and to on a personal level, understand that feedback is not an attack.

I think that might be a lesson that a lot of people need to occasionally take a step back and think about, that feedback and criticism is not personal. I mean, I can't say it's never personal. Some people are just people who shouldn't interact with others and for any purpose, but generally speaking, receiving feedback and receiving criticism is not personal.

It shouldn't be taken personally. It should be kind of seen as a way to build what you're doing better.

[Pinja] (22:34 - 24:00)

I fully agree with that. And again, that comes down to, do we have a psychological safety that has created this kind of feeling amongst people that I'm not now being criticized, I'm getting feedback on how to improve things further, and there might be this imbalance of power as well. So of course we have hierarchies in the organizations.

Some have higher hierarchies than the others, right? But what I've found from some of the leaders is that how they try to break that imbalance of power is a very simple tool called humor. So, it is not about making yourself laughable.

It is not about always cracking jokes, but that has a tendency to break the ice and make one more approachable. So that when there is a situation where you give feedback, it is not met with threat, for example. It is not met with, oh wow, this person is now criticizing me, and not met with, I do not want to open up myself to this person.

But this is one of the tools that I have taken to heart myself, how to break that ice. And if I feel that, it might not be even a hierarchical imbalance of power, but if I, as a consultant, I go and train people. So there is this teacher-student dynamic happening.

So I want them to feel that they're able to, for example, ask questions and question about what I'm teaching at the same time.

[Darren] (24:01 - 25:02)

Yeah, that's actually maybe another tactic outside of humor would be just the application of things like active listening. Because making another person feel heard is going to make them want to open up to you more. Even if you have a negative meeting or some problem you have to address, coming into it without the assumption of giving someone a dressing down, but with the assumption of listening to what they're saying, putting yourself in their shoes, it will often be that you can easily understand how these situations came to be.

And then it's much easier to say, okay, first off, here's the path we need to block off to make sure no one else falls down it. But I have heard what you've said and understand your position, like being approachable. Maybe if you don't have much of a sense of humor, we won't just say that humor is a good one.

I think it is, but also just being approachable, being a person who is known to listen.

[Pinja] (25:03 - 26:16)

That is true. And active listening is a really powerful tool that we all should learn to be better at. And there is always a reason why somebody is against a change, for example.

If we take transformations, and we see multiple organizations that go through transformations, and sometimes guided by us as consultants. And there is often one or two people who sit in the corner with their arms crossed, with a very unhappy look on their face, usually. They clearly look like they are not happy to be there.

They don't want this thing to happen. They have their doubts. So trying to understand why is it, and not blaming that you're the one who's now against it.

You're the one who's blocking this thing. But actively trying to break the ice and trying to be approachable. And make sure that with your own examples, you make sure that they understand that, okay, this person would try and understand my perspective, and this matter is usually what helps.

And it might not be even a big thing like this, a transformation, for example. But let's take a team meeting, as small of a unit as that. But trying to understand their perspective in the matters, and try to make them feel heard.

[Darren] (26:16 - 26:50)

It's an interesting idea because I don't think we often consider the impacts of consulting of third parties on the psychological safety of those who we consult for, who we're assisting. Because we get inserted into their work lives for a short portion of time. And then we back out, go into the next project, and they're left with what we have created.

So I think it's good to keep that in mind, that you are having an impact on more than just the pipelines, and on more than just the systems, that you are impacting lives.

[Pinja] (26:51 - 27:11)

That is very true. And it is not easy to innovate in a place where you feel threatened all the time. And I believe, and I know that there's science behind this fear and innovation, and how psychological safety is actually impacting our creativity centers.

Isn't that true?

[Darren] (27:11 - 28:41)

Yeah, not only the creativity centers but things like the traditional fight or flight response. We talk about that as fight or flight, like it's when a tiger jumps out at us from the forest; we either run or we put our fists up to take it on. But it's more subtle than that.

It's like being judged, being reprimanded, being embarrassed. These are things which basically trigger the same response. And the brain actually diverts resources away from things like problem solving, creativity, and higher order thinking.

And instead on this turtling response of, okay, either I'm going to fight back, or I'm going to flee. And I don't think I've found a situation in the workplace yet where either fighting or fleeing is going to help anyone. So I think that's the thing we need to understand about our brains, is that these things happen, they close doors, and they make it so that the useful parts of us as humans shut down, and we turn into lesser versions of ourselves.

And if you keep that in mind, it makes you wonder why you would ever want the kind of, what was it, the authoritative, pathological type, or the bureaucratic type, when you basically take a human and strip all the most useful parts out of him, or just make them responsive, like trigger parts that shouldn't be triggered.

[Pinja] (28:41 - 29:44)

Yes. I often like to add to fight or flight the freeze as well. One might call it flight as well.

It's kind of like a type of flight response as well. What I've seen is a little bit different. You do nothing in the face of adversity.

And flight and freeze both go into the hibernation analogy we talked at the very beginning. And our brain just goes into this prefrontal, this premature thing, and instead of not being able to perform and provide us the problem-solving skills that we have, as you said just now, Darren, that we minimize ourselves not willingly to a lesser version of ourselves. And a stressed brain that is creating cortisol and preventing our brain from thinking creatively we're hindering our ability to collaborate with our peers and our colleagues, and everybody in our lives.

So this will impact everything in the workplace and the innovation process as well.

[Darren] (29:45 - 30:53)

Yeah. It's very simple. There's also the opposite process of trust and collaboration.

Our brains have things like oxytocin to create these kind of trust environments, these collaborative environments. Those are things that will promote bonding. And those are things you're not going to see if your brain is stuck in a fight or flight mode.

So the ability to build a cohesive and collaborative team hinges on people having psychological safety. It hinges on people being able to say, okay, I'm comfortable being vulnerable here. I don't have these fight or flight reflexes being triggered.

Other chemical processes are happening; bonding occurs, and that leads to innovation. That leads to lack of conformity. It's disruptive ideas, even though I hate the word disruptive, but non-conventional ideas.

And all of this promotes things like risk-taking and innovation and all the positive things we want from, I think, members of our teams.

[Pinja] (30:53 - 31:40)

It is. We want our people to be curious. We want people to feel free to bring up their ideas.

I'm always up for promoting and encouraging curiosity in people. That's one of the key things that I also like about myself. When I was a kid, I was being told that I'm too curious, but now as a grown-up, I've grown to like that quite a lot.

But I notice that in myself as well. When I'm stressed and when I'm in a situation where I do not feel comfortable when I don't feel that I have the psychological safety to ask questions, that kills the curiosity immediately for me. Curiosity is always stimulating that creative thinking and being explorative.

Again, innovation, as we have said before in this talk here.

[Darren] (31:40 - 31:50)

Yeah, so it turns out that it was, I guess, curiosity that killed the cat and psychological safety that killed curiosity. I'm not sure where that stands on the order of things.

[Pinja] (31:50 - 32:25)

Well, we can talk about the cat's well-being as well. I think we might have cat lovers here in the audience and some cat owners also amongst the hosts of this podcast as well. But I agree.

How do we value the curiosity? I'm just thinking from a perspective of somebody who is in the leadership of an organization where the culture is more pathological or bureaucratic, that they might also feel that lack of psychological safety. If someone comes with an improvement idea and dares to come with an improvement idea, they might feel that this is criticism towards me.

[Darren] (32:25 - 32:26)

Or they might be restricted.

[Pinja] (32:27 - 32:29)

So, it impacts everybody in the organization.

[Darren] (32:29 - 33:14)

And then, like the impact of rules and, hey, this is a great idea, but this organization is bureaucratic and therefore cannot adopt this idea because it doesn't fit in with a rule set that's not really, it's kind of getting in the way. And I find it weird how many topics come back to this idea that it turns out that the best way to progress is to have minimal overhead to just allow the creative people. And that includes coders.

Coders are creative people to be creative and have your structure to support them and not impede them. And I think that can also go a long way to maintaining psychological safety.

[Pinja] (33:14 - 34:15)

Absolutely. And we think of the rules that some of the organizations implemented during, because this whole working from home started during COVID, or it did not start, but it got more widely implemented. So some of the organizations implemented ways of controlling their employees.

There was, for example, an organization that I heard of. They hired a person to check people's Teams and how long they've been inactive and remind them if they had been inactive for too long a time from their perspective. Or that if you join a meeting, there was an application installed to your laptop notifying managers if the meeting window was not at the top of your applications. So that basically preventing you from multitasking or looking at something else at the same time.

And no wonder also the sales of these gadgets that make it look like your mouse is moving the whole day to keep your teams or Slack status green came also forward during these times.

[Darren] (34:16 - 34:36)

Yeah. That's not surprising at all. If a little bit depressing that such authoritative measures are required to say, Hey, yeah, we need you to definitely be at your computer.

Don't stop to think, always be moving your mouse. So I think we've struck on a great recipe of how not to maintain psychological safety there.

[Pinja] (34:36 - 34:50)

Yeah. I think we could call this the anti-pattern of how not to succeed in your business and create innovative teams. If you want to follow that, and that is the desired outcome, that's the path that you go down on.

[Darren] (34:50 - 34:59)

And I think that's a great place for us to leave this. Thank you for joining me, Pinja, and talking about this psychological safety. It's always an important topic.

[Pinja] (35:00 - 35:14)

Thank you, Darren. This is one of my favorite topics to talk about. I feel very strongly about it.

And I do believe that the listeners also heard that from the discussion that we had. And as said, in the beginning, we cannot talk enough about this topic.

[Darren] (35:15 - 35:19)

And thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We hope you join us next time. Thank you.

[Pinja] (35:19 - 35:28)

All right. Thank you. Bye.

We'll now tell you a little bit about who we are.

[Darren] (35:28 - 35:31)

I'm Darren Richardson, Security Consultant at Eficode.

[Pinja] (35:31 - 35:36)

I'm Pinja Kujala. I specialize in Agile and portfolio management topics at Eficode.

[Darren] (35:36 - 35:38)

Thanks for tuning in. We'll catch you next time.

[Pinja] (35:38 - 35:46)