On this episode of Culture & Compliance Chronicles, Amanda Raad and Nitish Upadhyaya from Ropes & Gray’s Insights Lab, and Richard Bistrong of Front-Line Anti-Bribery are joined by Professor Guido Palazzo, co-author of The Dark Pattern: The Hidden Dynamics of Corporate Scandals. Together, they explore why corporate scandals are rarely the result of a few “bad apples” and instead stem from deeper organizational patterns—such as toxic leadership, unrealistic targets, and ambiguous rules—that shape behavior across entire companies. Professor Palazzo shares practical insights on how organizations can recognize and disrupt these harmful dynamics, foster allyship, and build cultures where ethical conduct thrives. Tune in for actionable strategies and a fresh perspective on creating lasting change in compliance and corporate culture.
Transcript
At a glance: Click the links below to advance directly to the corresponding sections of the transcript:
Nitish Upadhyaya: Welcome back to the Culture & Compliance Chronicles, the podcast that gives you new perspectives on legal, compliance and regulatory challenges faced by organizations and individuals worldwide. The clue is in the title—culture is at the heart of everything. It’s the endlessly shifting patterns that govern our environment and behaviors. The magic is in amplifying certain patterns and dampening others. Let’s see if we can pique your curiosity, get you to challenge some of your perceptions and give you space to think differently about some of your own challenges. I’m Nitish Upadhyaya, and I’m joined by Amanda Raad and Richard Bistrong. Hello, Amanda and Richard.
Amanda Raad: Hi there.
Richard Bistrong: Hi, Nitish. Hi, Amanda.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I’m delighted to be back after our anniversary episode. Still can’t believe it’s been a year since this podcast has been going, and all of the wisdom that we’ve had from various guests. While it was nice to rehash some of those and bring those to light, I’m even more excited because we’ve got a new guest, some new ideas, some new thinking, and some new perspective. So, Richard, who do we have with us today?
Richard Bistrong: Well, it’d be an understatement to share that I’m so excited to introduce our guest today, Professor Guido Palazzo, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in person. And I can also vouch for his cooking skills—I had a wonderful dinner at his home with his wife, Professor Bettina Palazzo, at their lovely home in Switzerland. But today might not be such a lighthearted conversation, where we’re going to discuss Guido’s recently co-authored book The Dark Pattern: The Hidden Dynamics of Corporate Scandals. Not to give too much of a teaser, Guido promises to take us through what drives unethical behavior in what he calls “corporate hellscapes,” but he does promise to bring us back to the light in what he calls “bright patterns.” Guido, welcome to the show.
Guido Palazzo: Thanks, Richard. Thank you all for having me.
[2:10] Getting to Know Guido
Nitish Upadhyaya: We’ve heard about [The] Dark Pattern, and we do want to dive in, but before we do that, let’s help our audience get to know you a little bit better. In a rapid-fire fashion, give us three things we should know about you, other than that you’re a great cook, which Richard has already revealed.
Guido Palazzo: One thing, when I was still at school, I was dreaming of studying archaeology and history, but I didn’t have the courage to do so because there were no jobs. Since then, I decided I have to be more courageous in life. I love Italy. I love Italian fashion, like Richard. Third thing, I’m a big fan of Pink Floyd since I was very young, and that’s why four of the chapters and sub-chapters in the book have titles from Pink Floyd. So, whoever finds them, send me a message.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I love a good Easter egg in a book—we’ll go hunting. What’s one thing that you’re curious about?
Guido Palazzo: I’m curious about “the banality of evil”—that’s how Hannah Arendt called it—so, the reasons that drive good people to do bad things, but also, the reasons that drive average people to become heroes, the opposite.
Nitish Upadhyaya: And what is the last thing that surprised you?
Guido Palazzo: I, luckily after decades, got tickets for a concert of Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, in Rome in the Circus Maximus, and what surprised me was how deeply moving it was for me after so many years to finally achieve that goal.
[3:30] An Introduction to Dark Patterns
Richard Bistrong: Guido, again, thank you for joining us. I was wondering if you can give us an overarching theme for the book. Why did you and Ulrich decide to write it?
Guido Palazzo: I looked into these corporate scandals since Enron, I would say, since I was a young professor. Since then, whenever I saw a scandal popping up in the news, it was always presented as a story of some bad apples, some crooks who consciously break the rules to enrich themselves, or because of some other character problems. But if you look into these scandals, if you look deeper into them, what you’ll find is sometimes thousands of employees who participate, and you cannot explain this by character. Which company has an HR department specializing in hiring crooks? Or which kind of crook would say, “I have to go and work for this company because they are very good for unleashing my criminal energy”? Understanding scandals through the perspective of the character of some bad apples doesn’t work, and that is what motivated us to ask the question of how can we understand scandals if that is not sufficient as an explanation. And how can we go beyond these Hollywood movie type of accounts of corporate scandals?
[4:45] Why the Bad Apple Theory No Longer Works
Richard Bistrong: You just shared that focusing on bad actors—and you talk about this in the book—and bad character teaches us nothing about corporate scandals. So, can you explain a little more why it doesn’t?
Guido Palazzo: Yes. You always have bad apples in a scandal. You always have some instigators, some psychopaths who very often are at the top of the organization. Take the scandal of doping in the Tour de France at the time of Lance Armstrong, who was winning the Tour de France seven times in a row. He was a psychopath. He was aggressive towards his team. He was threatening competitors to destroy them if they would speak up about the practice of doping. So, he was really a bad apple. But he didn’t start the doping. Doping existed decades before he entered this sport, and it existed probably even after him. It is not a system that comes via some instigators. When we look into scandals, we are not so much interested in why these bad apples at the top do what they do, what we want to figure out is the people in the middle, the middle management, the ones who actually break the law, because those at the top normally don’t do that, they just create the context for lawbreaking. Those in the middle who break the rule, for them, the toxic leader is context, and that is what interests us. Why do good people do bad things in organizations? And why would we, under certain circumstances, do the same?
Nitish Upadhyaya: What tools do you use to try and understand what makes people do these bad things where they get strung along, they find the context, they find a slippery slope potentially? What’s the answer to that big question that you’ve posed today starting with Hannah Arendt?
[6:30] Why Context Matters
Guido Palazzo: Hannah Arendt, her interpretation of the SS officer Eichmann was not uncontested. She was observing the lawsuit against Adolf Eichmann, the organizer of the Holocaust, in Jerusalem, and she was shocked by—as she wrote later—finding a boring bureaucrat, and not a monster. She might have been wrong about that, but social psychologists in the years after have again and again supported this basic idea that you can push good people into bad practices by changing the context in which they make their decisions. The late philosopher Philip Zimbardo with his famous prison experiments, he verbalized this—he said, “Context can be stronger than people.” 1960s in psychology, 1950s in philosophy, we applied this idea to analyzing scandals. So, we tried to ask ourselves, “If context pushes normal people into bad behavior, what are the elements of context that might even repeat from one scandal to the next because if they repeat, we might even see it coming?” And that is how we came up with the idea that there are nine repeating building blocks of what we call the “dark pattern” that can push good organizations and good managers to the dark side of the force.
Amanda Raad: I wanted to dive a little bit more into the context piece that you were just talking about, and in particular, about good people and bad people. I try to categorize people into one of those categories with the goal of trying to fix, or improve, or find the right people and enable them the best that I can. But I feel like the reality is there are very rare situations where you have all good or all bad. We’re all made up of a combination of good traits and bad traits that are triggered, I suspect, by context. And so, is that consistent with what you look at, where it’s really identifying what it is that is teeing someone up to activate that part being in a certain environment because if that’s the case, I suppose there’s hope for shift and change, and it’s not just a lost cause. What are your thoughts around that?
Guido Palazzo: One of The Dark Pattern building blocks is what we call “toxic leadership.” We claim that in some organizations you have a climate of fear that is created by psychopaths. When we say “psychopath,” we do not mean necessarily clinically investigative psychopath, but just behavioral psychopathy. For the victims, it doesn’t make a difference. But where does it come from? Why do leaders who are not clinically psychopaths behave like one, lead with pressure, fear, terror, yelling, shouting, and humiliating people? Well, because they observe throughout themselves that this is how things are done. We are social animals—we adapt to contexts. So, if I see that this is the way I’m supposed to manage my team, and if I want to survive and flourish in that context, I will adapt to what I’m expected to do—I will do this. You can also turn this around and say, “If you have enlightened leaders who treat people with dignity and are still performing with their teams, then you create the opposite.” We have contexts that promote one or the other type of behavior, and I must highlight one thing: We do not make this analysis to excuse the behavior. We’re not saying, because the context pushes you to commit fraud, harassment, or whatever it is, you are excused for it—no. We are still to be held accountable for what we do—we are not machines. We have to make a difference between an ethical analysis and a psychological analysis. We just do the psychological one and say, “We can understand how this happens, and if, as a top leader in a company, you want to avoid this, try to create a context that does not promote a dark pattern.”
[10:10] The Elements of Context
Nitish Upadhyaya: If folks are trying to understand their context better—you have these buildings blocks—can you tell us about the other bricks in this wall, and then we can understand better how to notice these things and then maybe what to do about them?
Guido Palazzo: The Dark Pattern has nine elements, nine building blocks, and we claim that they have to appear together because they are reinforcing to destroy the ethical culture of a company. I want to highlight four which I think are the most important ones here for our conversation:
- Imagine you have toxic leaders at the top of the organization. They create fear, they push you, and they kick you out if you speak up. So, you know that you cannot speak up to them—it’s impossible.
- In the second step, imagine these leaders give you goals you cannot achieve. Unrealistic goals—that’s our second building block. Unrealistic goals under normal circumstances are fine because you just go to your leader and say, “Well, it doesn’t work—cannot achieve them. We have to do something about that.” But not in a context where you know that saying that is destroying your career, is the end of your existence in that company, and in some of our scandals, even the end of your life because people kill themselves. So, you have goals you cannot achieve.
- You add to this, very narrow incentives. “Just this one KPI. You have to produce this product as cheap as possible.” So, it’s not about safety or it’s not about quality, it’s as cheap and as fast as possible. And then you do it as cheap, as fast as possible. Incentives can have another problematic aspect. A lot of companies use the Gauss curve to evaluate their people. They say, “We have high performers, average performers, low performers, and we want to kick out the low performers.” So, you pitch your own people against each other so that I can only survive, not if I am a good performer, but if I am better than the others. I have to kill, metaphorically, some of my colleagues in order to survive in these Hunger Games. This is incentive—third building block.
- Add a fourth element to that, which we call “ambiguous rules,” so it’s not clear what the rules are—there’s this leeway. Take again the case I mentioned of Lance Armstrong, doping at the Tour de France. They were all using, pretty much all of them, EPO, which is a drug that gives you 10% more performance. 10% more performance is worlds apart, so you cannot win, not even stay within the field, if you are not taking it. Now, they couldn’t discover that drug at that time in the blood with tests. What they could figure out was you have too many red blood cells, but that can come from training in the mountains. So, what they did was they fixed a limit: 50% red blood cells. If you are below, that’s fine. If you’re above, you’re a doper. The normal red blood cell level in the blood of a professional cyclist is 42-43%, so the real rule, was not “Don’t dope”—the real rule was “Don’t dope beyond 50%. Don’t dope too much.” Imagine you would tell your sales teams, “Actually, you can bribe, but don’t do it too much. Don’t exaggerate.”
These four things together are creating such a strong context: toxic leaders, unrealistic targets, too narrow incentives that pitch you against each other, and this gray zone where people start to interpret the rules of the game.
Richard Bistrong: I couldn’t agree more. Ambiguous rules, conflicting rules—I always think of them, even in my former commercial life, that those are the enemy of ethics and integrity and good conduct—people feel like they have to interpret them because there is not clarity. When we talk about toxic leaders, they’re not just launching into an organization—they’ve been there for a while, and they’ve been promoted, for the most part, in the organization. So, is there anything that an organization can do, and who should be doing it, to identify what could be potential toxic leadership in a new role where maybe it wouldn’t exhibit itself in a prior role? Is there anything that can be done to identify these traits before people are given more responsibility and ultimately before it ends up as a chapter in your book?
[14:30] Identifying Toxic Leaders Before It’s Too Late
Guido Palazzo: First of all, all of us intuitively know if someone is a toxic leader because we all have experiences around these situations. We know it—we don’t need clinical tests for that. We know from research that the average percentage of psychopaths in society is about 1%. Among CEOs, it’s 20%. So, why do these people get promoted inside organizations? Psychologists talk about the dark triangle—it’s a combination of three things that make you advance in a company faster than others. You are a psychopath, so you don’t care about other human beings. You are a risk-taker. You don’t care about risks—you just go for it. Then, you are a narcissist, so you’re just interested in yourself, but you are very charming so you can make people feel that they are the center of the universe one day, and the next day you treat them like nothing. So that’s the second part. And the third element, they are Machiavellianists. Machiavellianism means they are very good in playing political games behind the back of others. If you have this combination of features in one personality, they move up the ladder of a career and a company much faster than the others.
A company should critically look for these things and stop it early on because the biggest mistake that I see companies doing is they let these people do what they do as long as they are successful. People speak up and say, “My leader is toxic.” But then, the reaction is, “Well, he’s successful.” Most of the time, it’s a “he.” So, they move up. We love to be surrounded by people who are similar to us—the same for the psychopath. If I’m a psychopath, I move up the ladder of a hierarchy in my company. I pull others with me who are like me because I want them to manage like me, roughly creating fear and pressure because I think this is how I get results. I surround myself with people who are like me. And that is how you destroy, sooner or later, the culture of an organization.
[16:25] The Challenges of Speaking Up
Nitish Upadhyaya: I’m going to push you a little bit on that because I take the point around the dark triad, around the nature of the culture that some of these people bring, but as you said, Guido, they also bring the sales, they bring potential growth. It might not be sustainable growth, but at least in the moment it feels like that’s where they’re going. And in the presence of that, it’s kind of easy for one person or multiple people to be quite comfortably numb—you just sit there, and you get on with things, and that’s okay because you’re bringing in the sales, and then you leave. I also meet people who are trying to change something—they see this issue, but they are stopped by the system because there is protection in place for the individual. Going back to this banality of evil, what can one person do in this situation if they’re listening to this podcast and going, “That person’s not right for this organization”? What power do they have, and what systems could companies create to give them the ability to call this out and get rid of this stuff, to change the context before, as Richard said, it becomes a chapter in the book?
Guido Palazzo: When I look into these scandals, there are always people who speak up, and they get pushback. They get fired. They get threatened. And they all make one mistake—they try this alone. They don’t try to find allies before they speak up. When they speak up in that climate that I described—this climate of fear—of course, no one will support me because then the bystander effect kicks in. I might agree with that person, but I don’t want to be the first to support them. I don’t want to be the first because it is uncomfortable, and I don’t know what to say. I’m surprised by this move of that person in this meeting who speaks up, so I’m silent, and the person who speaks up is alone. The same if I am of the victim of bullyism, of harassment—I’m left alone. We know this from school bullyism already. People tend to take the side of the bully, not of the victim, because that is a way of avoiding being the next victim of the bully—stay with the strong person. So, what I always tell companies is you must train and promote allyship. You must tell people that they should support each other. And if you are someone who wants to speak up, don’t try this alone. Ask your colleagues to support you in the meeting so that they can prepare arguments and are ready to say something when you have spoken up first. Allyship is key, and it is so neglected in the whole debate on compliance trainings. We talk about speak up. We talk about listening. But we rarely talk about allyship.
[18:50] Different Shades of Dark
Nitish Upadhyaya: I really like that as a concrete step that someone can take when they’re facing some of these circumstances. I find that sometimes in organizations, on top of individuals and people coming together, it can be really difficult to step back. You see all these individual instances of behavior, but you fail maybe to stop the dark pattern. Now, is there a way, Guido, that you’ve come across in research or otherwise that, maybe like a black hole, you can’t really see the things outside of it? So, is there a way that folks who are listening to this might think about mapping the pattern in their own organization—different shades of dark—to get a sense of what’s going on so that they can then act in it using allyship or the other ideas that you’ve articulated today?
Guido Palazzo: There’s one chapter in the book where we tell and interpret a fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, where people are told that there are these powerful tailors who can create these wonderful clothes for the king, but they do nothing. It’s just fake, but no one dares to say it. If you read this story as a child, you will look at this and laugh about these stupid adults, but you can beautifully show all these social psychology effects that drive people to get together a distorted perception of reality. So, inside your context, everything feels okay. Only from outside people think—and we do this when we read about a scandal in the news—“How could they not see it? How could they be so stupid? How could they be so unethical?” Yes, but we are outside—we are exposed. They are inside—they are under the pressure. They are mutually reconfirming their world perception—they’re blinded for it. And when they get arrested, they’re surprised. “How could I ever do this?” Richard tells this story in a very powerful way. “How could I ever do this? It feels so alien to who I feel inside, and yet, I did it.” It’s because you get routinized in the wrong behavior, and you become blind to it. How can you protect yourself against that? That’s probably the most difficult thing to do.
This speak up culture that everyone wants—and almost no one gets really implemented—that is a good protection. And get feedback from people outside of your organization. Learn to listen. Learn to get critical feedback. Leave your bubble. I force myself, when I get the news, to read newspapers and magazines that are totally opposed to my own political view because I need to understand how other people argue so that I don’t just see my own arguments and get blinded for the diversity of viewpoints. Strong leaders do that. Weak leaders feel that diversity of viewpoints is a threat to them because there is someone who wants to get their position, and they silence them. So, don’t silence perspectives. And let others speak first. It’s a very simple rule from a cockpit in an airplane. The copilot speaks before the pilot because then the copilot can speak freely without hierarchy. As a team leader, let your team speak first, and then you speak.
Richard Bistrong: Otherwise, I would imagine you’re at risk to an overpowering narrative and phasing out those potential counterintuitive narratives.
Guido Palazzo: Yes.
[22:05] Mitigating Dark Pattern Elements
Richard Bistrong: Guido, in your concluding chapters, you bring us around to the bright pattern, and you talk about specific interventions and measures. I’m wondering, an organization can say, “We do have a little bit of potential corruptive goals and destructive incentives. Maybe we should plug those up to better ourselves.” But really, is that putting the cart before the horse? In other words, before a company wants to go to the bright pattern, are there certain measures and interventions they need to take beforehand, otherwise are they just putting Band-Aids on different parts of these destructive elements?
Guido Palazzo: When a company had a scandal and they paid a few billion in fines, and they kick out people, and they pull through the news, they normally make one big mistake—they want to get rid of that discussion as soon as possible. Look forward, not backward. And there are good reasons for that. Your PR people tell you, “We have to tell positive stories now.” Your legal people tell you, “Don’t talk about this because then we have new liabilities suddenly because of what you say.” Then, there’s a new CEO coming in who’s from outside—he wasn’t involved in these things, and he’s paid for looking forward, not backward. But you have, inside the organization, morally traumatized people. You have perpetrators. You have victims. You have people who colluded and bystanders. All of them are struggling probably with their own moral guilt, and if you don’t create a space where they can talk about these things, how do we expect them to speak up about future problems if you silence them about past problems? I have not found one good example of a company who is processing the past in a good way. If you had a big scandal, just use the documentary on Netflix, and watch it with your teams or train your new employees with that video and say, “This is who we were. We need to avoid that we become that again.” By having these conversations, you create a space in which people then learn to speak up about future problems. So, that is a key problem that I see in these post-scandal phases that has to be changed, in my view.
[24:20] Empowering Courage
Amanda Raad: You mentioned at the beginning in our get-to-know-you questions about courage, and I picked up on that because “courage” is my word of the year. I think it takes courage on both an individual and organizational level to do what you just said is so important—to look at the past and the future and the moment, all of it together, without a filter and maybe without judgment. How do you empower people to have the courage that it does require, because there are no guarantees how that will go, both if you’re the leader that’s really pushing for that or, wherever you are in the organization, to really dig into the negative of what has happened comes with some risk?
Guido Palazzo: If you had a scandal and that scandal is based on the dark pattern which includes toxic leadership, you have learned over the years that speaking up is dangerous. You know tons of stories and examples of where people spoke up and were punished or kicked out. A culture of an organization is nothing but the stories going around. So, what you need to do if you want to change that is you need to help new stories to circulate, stories in which people who spoke up get celebrated. That has to happen top-down. You need to create the situations of speak up, and then celebrate the people who come with uncomfortable truths, and that is the new story. And still, it will take years. People will sit back and wait because they know this new CEO, maybe she will be kicked out next week, and then the old style comes back, and I spoke up and will be punished then. So, they wait and see what’s happening, and if everyone sits and waits, nothing is changing. Therefore, creating these situations where people speak up and celebrate that, that’s key for the change.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I think you’re absolutely right, that the echoes of the past can have a really long tail, and you constantly feel the ripples many years, even if the entire leadership has changed, even if ownership has changed, you often see things deep-rooted in the history of a company because that’s how it was done, and that’s how people think it continues to be done. I also think the stories are fundamental. We talk about that a lot on this podcast, and the stories that people are telling each other about what you can and can’t do, what is okay to say, what you get slapped down for saying, or what people encourage you to say. You cannot control the stories, but you can influence the context in which they happen, and I think that’s one of the best points in my takeaways from this is that context is really, really important. Before I come to Richard and Amanda, going back to fairy tales, I tell my daughter Goldilocks—it’s one of the favorite ones that she loves. There’s this principle, the Goldilocks principle—we like things that are just right, not too extreme. But the moment you have leaders or others who push the context in one way, the extreme becomes normalized. And so, the porridge that is too hot, the bed that is too big, becomes the one that people see as the guiding principle. Again, I think that’s the pattern that’s really interesting to break. Amanda, what’s your biggest takeaway?
[27:30] Concluding Thoughts and Takeaways
Amanda Raad: I still see sometimes clients that are afraid to dig deep around the stories for fear of, “Am I digging under something that is going to create legal risk or exposure for me?” The stories are there whether you know about them or not, so you’re not actually changing anything if you don’t accept the reality of what’s going on. But to your point about being able to get the stories out there, celebrate the things that you need to celebrate, you can’t do that if you don’t know what the stories are—the good, the bad, the places we’re going. That’s my takeaway: it takes some courage. But we have to dig into this, I think, in order to move in the direction that we need to go. And so, it resonates with me a lot when I still see a feeling of not wanting to dig too deep into the story or the why for fear, and I think we have to avoid that.
Richard Bistrong: Guido and Ulrich have done so much to move us away from this bad apple narrative. I remember there was a pharmaceutical company—I’m going back probably over a decade—that got into trouble in three different countries. And each time, the press release was, “The person was trained. They understood the law. Bad apple.” Then, it happened again. The third time it happened, the chief medical officer said, “Maybe it’s time to roll business backwards if we’re going to roll ethics and integrity forward.” That was the first time I saw any company publicly admit or reason that the problem and the roots of the problem were deeper than individuals. So, Guido, thank you for shining such a light on that. I think the key here is we need to give people the space to do this—encouraging people to speak up. You’re more likely to scare them than to help them speak up if you’re not creating the atmosphere to allow them and give them permission to do that.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Guido, what do you make of that? We’d love to hear your final takeaways of what people can do, actionable things that they can just take away from this episode, and maybe start to whittle away at some of the stories that are in their organizations, so they don’t remain so crazy and move on.
Guido Palazzo: We talk a lot about courage here and that it requires courage to change things, to speak up, and to stop unethical things from spiraling into illegal things. I have a painting of two anti-mafia judges, Falcone and Borsellino, who were killed in 1992 by the mafia, and they knew that this end was waiting for them. I always tell managers, “That is courage.” Us speaking up in an organization, it’s nothing compared to that. So, sometimes, we even overestimate how much courage it needs to do the right things. Most of the time, it’s just a little bit of courage, and if we don’t walk alone, if we do this with others, it’s even easier to do.
Nitish Upadhyaya: What a great message to leave our viewers with. I am really, really excited to dive more into The Dark Pattern. We’ll leave it in the show notes. Why don’t you leave us with your favorite Pink Floyd song?
Guido Palazzo: My favorite Pink Floyd song is High Hopes.
Nitish Upadhyaya: What a great place to leave it, thinking more towards bright patterns and high hopes, and moving away from that context of The Dark Patterns. Thank you so much, Guido, for your time, your energy, your stories, and the hope that you’ve just given us that we can see what’s gone on, and maybe together try and change that and come into a new place that is more receptive and helps everyone grow, rather than just individuals.
Guido Palazzo: Thanks for having me.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Thank you all for tuning in to the latest episode in our Culture & Compliance Chronicles series. For more information about our series and any of the ideas discussed today, take a look at the links in our show notes. You can also subscribe to the series wherever you regularly listen to podcasts, including on Apple and Spotify. Amanda, Richard and I will be back very soon for our next chapter. If you have topics you’d like us to cover or novel perspectives you want everyone else to hear about, get in touch. Thanks again for listening. Have a wonderful day and stay curious.
Show Notes:
