Training Is Probably Not the Answer

When a CEO asks for a manager training program, the request is rarely the real problem. Ash Panjwani has watched the same pattern play out company after company: managers get restless, a peer firm is running trainings, and someone greenlights a program before anyone has defined what good looks like. Panjwani spent about 13 years building performance and leadership infrastructure at VMware, Twilio, OneTrust, and Procore before founding Work Happy, and his case is that most leadership development starts one step too late.

‍

Why do most training programs solve the wrong problem?

‍

Because the request for training is almost never the actual issue. When a leader asks Panjwani to build a program, his first question is what business outcome they are chasing: missed sales targets, weak retention. The answer usually points to a clarity, communication, or accountability gap rather than a skills gap. "So often we jump right to let's go bridge the gap, yet we don't know what the gap is," he says.

‍

What has to happen before a company spends on training?

‍

Define what good looks like, then wire it into the decisions you already make. Panjwani runs a three layer approach: set the standard by codifying expectations across the manager, director, and VP levels; build the system by hardwiring those expectations into hiring, promotion, and feedback; then bridge the capability gap with training. Skip the first two layers and any program is activity without a destination. "When you don't say it out loud and when you don't state it explicitly, someone else will define it for you," he says.

‍

Why does employee trust keep eroding?

‍

Not compensation. Strategy keeps shifting, and leaders ship each new decision without showing the thinking behind it. Panjwani tells leaders to show their work in a standing rhythm, so people stop bracing for change and start anticipating the update. "When I start to step back and reflect on what's really going on and what's causing this churn and erosion, it's the lack of communication. It's a lack of transparency that's really getting in the way," he says.

‍

How does HR get a CFO to fund a culture problem?

‍

Stop calling it a culture problem. The moment HR says it has a trust issue, the CFO tunes out, because the phrase hands them a vague wrapper instead of a business issue. Reframe it as sales missing targets and engineering no longer talking to product, and the same executive leans in. "If we want business leaders to actually meet us where we're at, we got to drop the HR buzzwords," Panjwani says.

‍

What does responsible AI adoption require?

‍

The same codification you would give a new hire. Define what good use looks like, set the expectations, then match the rollout speed to the cost of a mistake. AI-native firms can iterate fast; construction and healthcare, where a mistake can mean a workplace incident, should move slowly. "If you don't take the time to onboard your AI, if you don't take the time to codify, if you're not doing that work, the output will be garbage," he says.

‍

Panjwani leaves HR leaders with a five minute test: ask your most junior employee what the strategy is this half and how their team's work connects to it. If the answer does not come plainly, the distance between the executive suite and the front line is wider than the org chart shows.

Logan (05:43): Well, good Ash, is there anything you would like the audience to know about you and some of the stuff that you're up to?

‍

Ash Panjwani (05:52): Sure. Well, I'm Ash Panjwani. I've spent the last 13 years or so building performance and leadership infrastructure across companies like VMware and Twilio and OneTrust and most recently at Procore. I now run Work Happy. Workhappy.co is the URL. I do the same kind of work, but now I get to do it for so many different companies and so many scaling companies. So from series A all the way to post-IPO.

‍

It's really for companies who may have hired a few people on like the people or HR team internally who are willing to scale that people, the performance and leadership infrastructure, or it could be for someone who actually doesn't have anyone in-house and just needs an additional hand. So that's where Work Happy can really lean in. I started to basically see the same thing happen like company over company, and I started to realize we're talking in the world of leadership programs, performance programs, but I see them more as systems. And so the moment that I started cracking the code at one company, did it another, did it another, I just figured I need to step back and actually do it for many, many more. So that's a little bit about me.

‍

Logan (07:01): Awesome. What did you see at multiple companies in the leadership space that was like, it needs to become the system?

‍

Ash Panjwani (07:08): Well, you know, it always starts with the same conversation, which is we need a new leadership program, or like we need to teach this one particular skill. And I mean, we all kind of jump with the opportunity, like, great, we're being tasked to do something. We've now earned the trust of the senior leader. Let's go do it. Let's go earn that trust. But I like to step back and really think about, what are we actually developing? Have we established like that shared sense of expectations, a shared sense of behaviors? Do we know what good looks like across the manager world, the director world, the VP world? Have those behaviors been communicated out? They know?

‍

So I guess to answer your question more plainly, I started to see the systems approach being like, one, we haven't done the work of codifying the expectations and behaviors across the company, let alone sharing it out. And then we haven't really built it into the system, like the talent system underneath it. And so everyone's looking around wondering, what is expected of me? And the reality is when you don't say it out loud and when you don't state it explicitly, someone else will define it for you.

‍

And so that's kind of what I've been doing. And there's actually like one instance that really stands out to me. I was walking into a performance cycle and we were like having a great calibrated meeting, and then we now are starting to talk about like the leaders in the group, and everyone kind of just pauses and we're just like, wait, I don't think I know how to assess the different kinds of leadership in the room. I don't think we've done the work of defining what a good manager looks like versus what a great manager looks like, or a director or a VP. And that is like a feeling that I never want to feel again.

‍

That's like the other thing that I'm solving for. If I don't know, then clearly like the people who are calibrating, the people who are responsible for ensuring there's consistency in assessment, they don't know. And then like that kind of inconsistency impacts performance, impacts promotions. Like we're talking about real life decisions that this impacts. And so if we actually take the time to build the system, then we're less likely to run into those instances. And I'm happy to share like my three layer dip approach too if that's helpful.

‍

Logan (09:31): Yeah, yeah. What's the three layer dip approach? I have two follow-on questions. Let's share the three layer dip approach. But when you're talking about leadership development and managers, are you thinking of those as like two different things, or like that you're codifying and wanting to put behaviors in, or are you like interchanging some of that when you're talking with companies?

‍

Ash Panjwani (09:37): Okay, so let me start with a layer and then I'll talk about like, what do I actually mean? So for me, my three layer approach is really, first, start with setting the standard, like really create that common blueprint of the shared expectations, the shared behaviors, what does good look like? Like I mentioned before, then you go in and build the system. This is like where you hardwire these behaviors into decisions that are already taking place across the company. So think your hiring decisions, think your promotion criteria, your bottoms up feedback, your tops down feedback, really creating an ecosystem where leaders are incentivized to lead and live in a way that's aligned with what the company is looking for and like aligned to then also the priorities for the company.

‍

And then once you know where you want them to be and where they are today, then you can start to have the conversation of bridging the capability gap. Right, then we can start talking about all the fun activity, the trainings, the programs to help get someone from point A to point B. But so often we jump right to let's go bridge the gap, yet we don't know what the gap is. Right, we're just jumping into activity and programming without actually talking about it. And so your question was like, am I talking about managers? Am I talking about leaders? Where does this framework or like, where did the expectations live? Is that right?

‍

Logan (11:02): Well, just the difference between leaders and managers. If we're simplifying it and using them.

‍

Ash Panjwani (11:25): Yeah, I think this can be like such a big philosophical question about like where does leadership sit? But in terms of like this conversation, well, for the sake of this conversation, when I was talking about like managers, I'm really talking about the frontline. I'm talking about like the early-in-career managers, the people who have like the teams of eight, they may have just taken up management over the last couple of years.

‍

Logan (11:33): That's what we're here for, Ash. We're here for the philosophical questions.

‍

Ash Panjwani (11:54): And when I talk about leaders, I'm talking about directors and VPs. I'm talking about those individuals as folks who are not just managing teams, but they're also now managing teams of people, managers of managers. They're managing functions, they're managing organizations, and sometimes even across organizations.

‍

Logan (12:12): Yeah, that makes sense. It's such a tricky one with, you know, sometimes people are referencing, not you, but it's like managers and leaders, like a first-time frontline manager is like, you know, a leader, or that kind of stuff. So I'm always curious what people think of that as they're going through. So why in this whole framework, like as you're thinking about your systems, like why are teams and company, why do so many companies struggle with this? Like thinking through to get to a systems place.

‍

Ash Panjwani (12:50): Yeah. And I'll go back to what I said earlier, which is, I think we start off with just being reactive. We're reactive to the question of, hey, it's been six months and our managers are eager and hungry for some sort of program. They hear about, you know, some friend peer of theirs in a different company who are getting all sorts of training and fun. And so we need to do something to retain them. We need to do something to activate them. But then we don't take that step back to really ask, like, what are we building? What are we activating in service of what?

‍

Logan (13:24): Okay, and how do you work with clients and companies to get them to start stepping back and thinking about that before they're just like going to action?

‍

Ash Panjwani (13:38): Yeah, I mean, when that question comes my way, like, hey, Ash, we need this new training. Like, what can you develop? What can you run our people through? My first question back is, what are we trying to solve for? What are the business outcomes that we're trying to unlock? What's getting in the way? Are your sales numbers struggling? Are you struggling to hit targets? Are you trying to retain your top talent? Are you trying to see more ownership behaviors across the company? Like, what are we actually trying to solve for?

‍

Because once you start going through this list of questions, chances are training is probably not the answer. Chances are there's other gaps at play. Like, perhaps there is a clarity gap. Maybe someone doesn't know what the strategy is, and there's now like an additive cost of that like lack of translation. Or maybe there's a communication gap of some sort, or maybe even an accountability gap, right? We say we're gonna do one thing, but then we don't actually hold people accountable. So then things start to slip and fall. So it's usually not just a skills gap. And that's what I'm really trying to get them to identify. Like what's actually going on beneath the surface that we haven't quite named yet.

‍

Logan (14:51): And do executives have a difficulty making that connection? Are they the ones that you're talking to, like have the bias towards action all the time, or are they like more apt to want to step back and actually start thinking strategically?

‍

Ash Panjwani (15:07): I think when you start to ask those questions, you start to see the pivot happen already, right? Because I'm already not talking about this like next very attractive, sexy training. I'm actually talking about like, what's going to move the needle for the business. Because I mean, like training programs, activity, that's all cost. And if I'm talking to a CEO or anyone in like seats that actually have some control over P&L, chances are they probably don't want to hand me money without actually thinking through what they're actually wanting to see reflected in the organization.

‍

And then as we start to have this conversation of like, but managers need to learn how to give better feedback, then the follow-up question is, do they know that that's what's expected of them? Have you told them that that's what's expected of them? Have you shown them what happens when they don't lean in with feedback? Have you shown them what it looks like when managers aren't making up these like amazing teams filled with coaching and guidance and advice? Like, what are the repercussions of not doing that? When we start to have that conversation, you start to see the wheels spinning in a different way.

‍

Logan (16:16): Interesting. And with all this talk of leadership development, one of the other things that's interesting that we're seeing that I wanted to talk to you about is the, I guess, the trust piece of all of this. Like even if we're investing in developing leaders and doing all of this, employee leadership trust, it's at a low. And I think it's just been plummeting is probably what the data tells us. And I guess like, why do you think that trust is eroding? And like, what do like senior leaders thinking about as they're like, our teams don't trust us. Like not trusting the communication piece.

‍

Ash Panjwani (16:39): It's such a loaded conversation. Again, like a great topic. And I don't want to say like there's just one thing that's probably causing the erosion in trust, because there's so much that can be happening across the organization. And this is really where like the diagnosis really helps, to sit down with the teams to understand and unpack. Is it like strategy that's not getting translated down? Is it some other like misbehaviors that we're starting to see that are eroding trust? So what's actually going on? I'll tell you what I see over and over again with my clients.

‍

It's like the sentiment from the people, the employees, that the strategy keeps shifting. Right? Like, man, this is now quarter two and here we go again, what we set in quarter one is no longer true today. And that's what's getting in the way. And I'll tell you, and both sides are true, right? Like from the executive point of view, you've now been in that room, you've made the call, you see the macro environment changing around you. And so you're having to shift and switch and share out while still like keeping your teams engaged. That experience is true.

‍

From the employee point of view, it's also true that they've now shifted strategy two or three times. And so when I start to like think back and step back and reflect on what's really going on and what's causing this like churn and trust and erosion, it's the lack of communication. It's a lack of transparency that's really getting in the way. And I think like with so much going around, if we're going to step back and say that like our top talent is leaving because so-and-so is providing a better comp structure, a better comp plan, I think we're fooling ourselves. Because I don't think people are leaving just because of comp. I think there's enough, if you give them a reason to stay, they will, beyond just financial means. They have to feel like they're part of something. They have to feel like they understand what's happening across the organization. And if we can just invest a little bit deeper into that like communication transparency layer, I think we can do that.

‍

Logan (19:14): Yeah. And people are in a sticky spot right now because, I mean, obviously AI and, you know, people, I've talked to some folks on the podcast and like they're thinking about HR operating model shifting and all of that, like that's very real and it's shifting very heavily. People, it's whiplash all the time, having things change multi-quarter. And then there's also a data piece that suggests, and I love this because Dreamdata just put it out, that, you know, the revenue cycle from, you know, first marketing impression to closed won is like 284 days. So then you have this long gap of like, when you do something and revenue starts to hit. That's also like saying, maybe you should wait a little longer. Like it's this wild thing. So people are in a tough spot. I would say, I don't know. I mean, you probably have some good insights onto that, but that might be there, but it's just a crazy world at this point of moving fast, not moving enough.

‍

Ash Panjwani (20:20): It's a crazy world. Like, I mean, the people that I talked to, the leaders that I talked to, they're worried about strategy. They're worried about execution. They're worried about the investor update that they have to send next week. They're worried about the quarterly report that they have to share out with their board. They're worried about like, why do decisions take so long? They're worried that ultimately the buck stops with them. Those are some loaded worries and rightly so. And then it makes me think like, okay, so what's going to change that? Like what's going to create some more ownership across the company?

‍

And it really comes down to, from my perspective, it comes down to actually including the people in your thinking. A manager long ago used to say this to me and it kind of just stuck with me. She used to say, Ash, you need to show your work. And the same thing is true for the VP making the decision in a quiet room somewhere else. It's, you got to show your work. You can't just come back to the employee population and say, this is the decision that we've made. It's different from Q1. We're now pivoting to Q2 priorities and that's it, period, full stop. You kind of have to bring them along the journey. What caused you to change this decision? What trade-offs did you make as a leader? Because the reality is people aren't just going to buy the decision that you're shipping out to them. They're going to buy whatever journey you've been on. Like help them land on the same conclusion that you just did. And now suddenly they're making the same movie as you. They now are like owning the problem and the solution with you. They're not just doing as you say.

‍

Logan (21:55): And how do you do that without like it being a constant update, in like the unease of like, we can't come up with decisions? How do you, do you have like thoughts on like balancing that?

‍

Ash Panjwani (22:09): Yeah, I love that question. I think it also gets to this like sentiment that we're always in a state of change. Gosh, I really don't like that statement. Like I will have a visceral reaction to that statement. Because yes, like the world around us is ever evolving, we are in a state of change. But then every time you say that word, the person in front of you also has that reaction. They also have the sense of anxiety every time they hear like, hey, yet another thing has changed. So what I tell my leaders to do is really create robust practice around just sharing updates and like being transparent about the updates as regular as possible.

‍

Which means you're showing up on a Monday standup meeting. You're talking about what was very real from last week. What were the decisions that were made last week? What from those decisions are still true today? What is not true anymore? And then what is probably going to change because of everything else that you're seeing across like around the horizon. And then you do that repeatedly enough, and now your people aren't anticipating change. They now know this is the rhythm of the business. This is the rhythm of how you speak, how you talk, how you share updates. So now they anticipate it. Okay, Monday standup is coming up. I know exactly what's going to happen. Something's going to be true. Some things are no longer going to be true, but I'll have a good sense of like where we're heading for at least the next six hours. Hopefully.

‍

Logan (23:16): Yeah, I mean, in some cases, six hours could be a long time in the markets open and everything. I would imagine there's a bit of like, as you're working with leaders and HR comes in often and we'll talk about like psychological safety and all of this, because if you're going to go down this road of like communicating change, you're to have employees that are uneasy. Like, I mean, I get uneasy if it's like you're constantly having all the shifts. Like, what does it mean? Like, how do you start bringing that in and not have the, that's just fluffy stuff out of all of this, and build that into the organization?

‍

Ash Panjwani (24:19): Yeah, and I love this question so much because I care about this question so much. And I get into heated debates with my friends about this as well. Look, when HR walks into the room with the CFO and says like, hey, we have a trust issue in the company, we should address that right away, the conversation has ended before it even had a chance to start. The CFO is now glancing over like, what are you talking about? Because what we're doing is taking a very real business issue. I'm not saying it's unimportant. It's actually a very real business issue. But we're putting this like HR wrapper around it. And now we've handed it over to the CFO to figure out like, what do we actually mean by trust? Like what's happening beneath the surface?

‍

And so imagine if we actually change the conversation, or instead led with like, hey, something deeper is going on. Sales is missing their targets. Engineering is no longer talking to product. They're falling behind. They're not meeting priorities. We're going to miss the bookings number this next quarter. Like when we start to have a different kind of conversation, suddenly the CFO is more interested in like what's going on. So if we want business leaders to actually meet us where we're at, we got to drop the HR buzzwords. We can't just start leading with, we're having a trust issue. It's got to be more meaningful than that. And then like now you're engaging in a language that they actually understand and they want to listen to. Right? When you're saying like, hey, engements are priorities, sales leaders aren't actually following the new go-to-market motion, then we can get into like, why? Why are sales leaders not following the new motion? We just installed it. We just did a huge communication, like run through of it. Why are people not getting on board? And then you're having a real conversation about trust, not necessarily naming trust, but really talking about what's happening beneath the surface.

‍

Logan (25:46): Yeah. And that's a huge distinction because like, if you like start framing it in, you know, maybe it's like, CS isn't talking to product or like this or that. Like that's a big problem in organizations. And it comes down like, psychological safety, like all of that is embedded in that. But it then becomes a very real, you know, EBITDA concern. And so then everybody prioritizes it. And what's interesting, in the sales and marketing world, people will be like, companies will say, there's no budget for that. We don't have a budget for this. And what's surprising is that if people or companies care about something, they always find budget. So if you have initiatives like improving trust or improving psychological safety, putting in the right terms, companies will buy in and find budget for that and prioritize for that. I think that's always something interesting to think about.

‍

Ash Panjwani (27:02): 100%. Yeah, imagine if you were actually having a conversation with the CFO and said, hey, the VPs, they're not translating the strategy down to their frontline. Can you imagine like the CFO will stop and wonder, what is going on? That is a huge problem. That's a miscommunication problem.

‍

Logan (27:16): Yep, exactly. So that's good. Now, we talked about codifying and change. And the reason I bring those two up, which might seem a little random for those listening to this, is I want to talk about AI. And the reason is around building systems, building systems for people and for AI, which codifying does, and is causing a whole bunch of change. So we have to think about it. How are you thinking about like, cause you're a systems builder and I love that, because systems are hard to build, but when they work, they work well. Like how are you thinking about with your clients, like building systems that onboard employees and get employees through, but then can also be used for AI agents as people start thinking about that?

‍

Ash Panjwani (28:15): Yeah, this is such an interesting question. Like I think of it as AI, humans, leaders, we all need that same level of discipline and system like you just said, right? Like we all need that layer of codification. We all need to establish some sort of standard. What are we working towards? What are we going to be held accountable to? Right. And I think that doesn't change. When I hear, we need to drive AI adoption, I feel like we've kind of lost the plot. Right? Like that's like a senior leader again, asking for yet another training. So before addressing that request, I'd actually pause and ask like, in service of what? What do we want the AI adoption to do? What you don't want to run into is yet another tool that's not going to drive AI adoption. What you need is probably a mindset shift, but you need us to codify like, what are your expectations of someone using AI?

‍

What is acceptable here? What is no longer acceptable here? So it goes back to like my three layer. You set the standard, you codify what good looks like. Then you build the system by like hardwiring these expectations everywhere you have a decision. So again, it goes back to hiring against these expectations. So the front door is already starting to filter out who's going to be good enough for you and who's not. And then you start to drive those accountability mechanisms from within. And then you can worry about bridging the capability gap. Right?

‍

Logan (29:40): Yeah. And what's interesting, like when I think about this problem, I always go back to, I don't know why I go back to this, but I do, is employee onboarding and how some companies do it well. Like people do it well, people don't do it well, but often, at least I've been environments where it's never all that great. And it's very difficult to create good employee onboarding and get them productive and doing exactly what they need to do. And then you have those same companies like, let's throw AI onto it. And it's like, if you can't get employee onboarding right, then like, you're probably not going to get the other right. Cause the context and everything in it is really, it's a lot of work. And that becomes a big base layer for everything that you're doing. And it goes back to everything you're saying, building the system. And so I think that that's probably something to look at. I mean, do you have advice for clients on building that out?

‍

Ash Panjwani (30:41): Yeah, I mean, you kind of nailed it. The only difference is, with a new hire, if you don't do the work of codifying, you can't really see where things break down until like months later, right? Three, six months later, and suddenly you see like, oh yeah, that new hire, not going to work out, likely not because of a skill issue, probably because they weren't set up for success, probably because they had no idea what was going to be expected of them in the first 90 days or so. And you can't even pick that up right away because it's kind of spread out across the org.

‍

AI is different. If you don't take the time to onboard your AI, if you don't take the time to codify, if you don't take the time to, like going back to our earlier conversation of like creating the good skill, like actually feeding the bot what you need it to do, if you're not doing that work, the output will be garbage.

‍

Logan (31:12): Yeah, and you actually can, at least in the context of AI, you could see it pretty quickly, because it'll come out and be like, that's just not right. But I think that's probably where a lot of people stop, and it's like, oh, it's not right, that's, you know, AI doesn't work kind of a thing. But I mean, maybe that's too simple, and that shouldn't be discounting that like that. But in this onboarding piece, you talked about adoption of AI, like people wanting adoption. Various industries are having different adoption rates as well. And you made a comment when we were at Tran, not when we were at Transform, but we were both at Transform, and like seeing like companies like Zapier and Databricks are, you know, going gangbusters with AI. You're like, well, other industries aren't. Like, why do you think that that particular piece is, like, is there adoption cycles that different companies are going to go through?

‍

Ash Panjwani (32:29): Yeah, I mean, look, let me just address this. The fear is real. When we are not addressing someone's fear, I think we've like lost them in the conversation. So if someone's approaching us with a, I don't know what to do with AI, I think like one, let's pause instead of like shoving AI to them. Let's pause and just acknowledge where their sentiment is at because they're afraid. Like, let's just acknowledge that. Let's just be humans and like lead in with that first.

‍

Now to your other question about like, what about these other companies who are just going AI gangbusters? I mean, good for them. They also have AI products, right? So they're on this like high tech curve where like there is going to be a lot of adoption. They're drinking their own champagne as they should. And we want to see more of that. But you look at other industries, to your point, like everyone's seen that like now Anthropic chart of like the laggards and the adoption curve. And that is very real. You look at construction, you look at healthcare, the cost of a mistake is actually really high. And so that's why you want to take a more stable, more thoughtful approach to how you're going to roll it out.

‍

When the cost of a mistake is low and that recovery can be super fast, then yeah, go all in on AI, start experimenting, start iterating, like start doing large sample sizes of iteration. But when your cost of mistake can be super high and that recovery is actually going to be really slow, then yeah, take a more thoughtful approach. I'm not saying don't experiment with AI. I don't think we have a choice at this point. Like we do have to lean into this world of AI, but I would take a more thoughtful, like maybe slower approach. I mean, take Procore for instance, construction software for construction folks. If something messes up in that world, the cost is high. There is now an incident in the workplace. That is not something that we want to be walking into. So just thinking about this formula and taking a more thoughtful approach depending on where on the curve you are, I think is very important.

‍

Logan (34:35): Yeah, and the construction one is a good example. I have somebody I was talking to who's in construction about AI and he was like, can AI hang drywall for me yet? And I was like, no. He's like, okay, well call me when that happens, cause that's my biggest problem is doing that. And you're like, okay, well yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Like if you're thinking about the problems, like it's there. I mean, and then healthcare is obviously a big one because, you know, I was talking to another medical professional and he was telling me, he's like, well, the costs are high, but they have people experimenting with it in research. And so they're starting testing research where the risk is low. And so they can start figuring out things for improving their research process. There's areas.

‍

Ash Panjwani (35:11): Yeah, or like in data, like giving better, more predictive analytics to folks like that. That all makes sense to me because the risk can be a little bit lower. There's still human judgment that's required on top of the data piece. I think that's kind of like the barrier.

‍

Logan (35:33): Yeah, so those are all really, really great examples, Ash. Ash, is there anything else that we didn't discuss that you would like to leave the audience with?

‍

Ash Panjwani (35:46): I mean, for those, I'd like to go back to this, like, where is the sentiment at? I think a lot of what I hear right now is like folks not really getting on board with the strategy, or the strategy feels like far from the truth for like maybe a P4 professional, like four level person. If I am your head of HR or like someone within your people function, I'd go talk to your junior-most person in the company, or junior-most manager even, and ask them the question of like, what is our strategy in this half? And how does your team's work connect to that strategy for the company? If they can't answer plainly in five minutes, I can tell you right now, you probably have a very large gap between what the executives are doing up top and how the company's really operating at the bottom. So that would be like the one diagnosis that I would leave everyone with.

‍

Logan (36:45): That's a really good tactic. I would encourage all listeners to go do that and see what you come back with. Good. Well, Ash, where would you like people to connect with you?

‍

Ash Panjwani (36:54): Yeah, I'm so curious to hear the responses now. Well, follow me on LinkedIn. I'd love to connect with you there. Join me on my journey with Work Happy, wrkhappy.co, that's W-R-K-H-A-P-P-Y.co. We're missing the O there. And yeah, let's talk. I'm happy to exchange ideas of any sort.

‍

Logan (37:21): Awesome, Ash. Well, thank you very much for taking the time to chat. I had a lot of fun.

‍

Ash Panjwani (37:26): Yeah, likewise. Thanks for having me, Logan.

‍

Logan (37:28): Thanks everybody. Have a great rest of your day.

‍

Ash Panjwani (37:31): Bye.