Podcast
Podcast
- 15 Nov 2023
- Managing the Future of Work
Euan Blair on workforce development: College is broken. Apprenticeships deliver.
Joe Fuller: For many, college is an expensive gamble on landing a job that leads to a lifetime of well-paid work. Among the alternatives, the apprenticeship model holds a less-speculative appeal for workers and employers alike. Can this earn-and-learn model provide equitable workforce development in a fast-changing digital economy? And can it equip workers with the wherewithal to perform today and develop skills for the long run?
Welcome to the Managing the Future of Work podcast from Harvard Business School. I’m your host, Harvard Business School professor and non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Joe Fuller. My guest today for this, our 200th, episode is Euan Blair, Founder and CEO of Multiverse, a U.K.-based apprenticeship firm that has expanded into the U.S. market. We’ll talk about the disconnect between college and career and how apprenticeship can advance the development of both hard technical skills and the social, or foundational, skills critical to securing a job and advancing in one’s career. And, amid shifting legal parameters for college admissions and potentially even hiring in the United States, we’ll discuss the potential for apprenticeships to provide a diverse workforce in the future. Euan, welcome to our podcast and to our 200th episode.
Euan Blair: Great to be here.
Fuller: Well, knowing a little bit about your background, I can’t say, if you’d asked me 10 or 15 years ago what I thought you would be doing in 2023, I would’ve guessed a U.K.-based unicorn that focuses on apprenticeship. How did you find yourself pursuing this?
Blair: I basically started my career in investment banking at Morgan Stanley, and I was armed with a degree in ancient history, a master’s in international relations. I was hired to be an analyst in corporate debt and derivatives, and I remember looking around at the graduate class that I joined with, and pretty much everyone was male, pretty much everyone was white, and most strikingly, we all came from very privileged backgrounds, we had all done similar arts degrees at elite institutions, and we had no divine right to be there. We learned everything we knew about that job on the job. And I was in finance for five years. I wanted to understand how markets allocate capital, how businesses work and scale, but I was always really interested in this piece, the kind of disconnect between education and employment. And so I left finance to do something very different. I joined an organization that was all about helping long-term unemployed people get jobs. The objective was to take people with a history of incarceration, disability, long-term unemployment, with substantial barriers to the labor market, and help them to get a job. My job, initially, was to persuade employers that they could find great talent looking in these nontraditional sources. And I eventually became CEO of that organization in the U.K. The company helped 100,000 long-term unemployed people find jobs. It felt like a big victory. The challenge was, as I started to look at what we were doing, we could get people a minimum-wage check; it was really hard to argue we were sort of fundamentally changing the direction of their lives. And, too often, the jobs were tenuous, not particularly secure, didn’t have lots of upward mobility. And the obsession for me became, really, what is it going to take to ensure the best jobs of the next decade don’t simply go toward the same people as the best jobs of the last decade? Because if we can’t address that challenge, we were going to end up with more people in liberal democracies feeling like the system is unfair, and they would be right to feel that. But also, we were squandering economic opportunity, it was deeply inefficient, and we lacked an effective model for transition from full-time education to full-time employment. And increasingly, as I looked into this, I became really excited about this idea of apprenticeships, because so much of the challenges we had around entry to the labor market fed back into this obsession with college or higher education. Right? Everyone had to have a degree. There’s a big financial barrier there, so that hampered social mobility. But also, there’s a big academic barrier that doesn’t need to exist. Right? Actually, there’s no correlation between academics and job performance, so why are we obsessed with colleges being the primary route to the workforce? And the idea with Multiverse was, if you could build a genuinely alternative ecosystem to this higher education model through apprenticeships—where you were paid on the job, it’s earn and learn, it’s applied in the workplace—you could quite quickly come up with not just a much better model, but one that could be used across every stage of people’s careers. So you could retrain and reskill people already in the workforce, you could get away from this idea that one shot of learning is sufficient for what people might have to do over a 50-year career, and you could build that lifelong learning muscle.
Fuller: Let’s talk about the difference between the U.K. and the U.S. So you entered the field in the U.K., where there had been, one could argue, a bipartisan commitment to apprenticeship. But it was a fundamentally different, both economy but also education system, and apprenticeship was more widely accepted or maybe not so warmly embraced in the U.K., specifically in England for a lot of years, as opposed to the U.S. where apprenticeship has remained very focused on a very limited number of industries—specifically, construction trades. And, of course, the U.S. is the most maniacal nation as it relates, historically at least, to the college obsession. So could you contrast those two markets and also this decision you made to try to move from one market that you were settling in and running a substantial organization to try to recolonize America, but through the most peaceful lens of apprenticeship?
Blair: Yeah. I’m not sure I’d use that exact terminology to describe what we’re doing, but in Britain, we have proportionally, in terms of comparing the size of the workforces, eight times as many apprentices as in the U.S., and there are far, far more in tech and professional services in the kind of apprenticeships we’re doing. I actually think America’s probably, though, only five years behind Britain on this. So one of the things that was crucial in the U.K. was the government decided they wanted to make this a core kind of policy focus, that this was something that, for example, the data suggested every one pound spent in the British economy on apprenticeships returned 27 or 28 pounds. Right? Which is very rare as a government you get to make an investment like that. Deeply popular on the left and the right. There was a clear need, employers were on board. In the U.S., it always felt an obvious move to do this in America. America has a deeply unhealthy addiction to college, and you have north of 40 percent of people dropping out without ever completing. Right? Just accumulating debt and nothing else to show for it. You have very stark socioeconomic racial divides that are unhelpful when we’re trying to make the labor market more equitable and companies want to better reflect their customers. And there is a massive skills and productivity shortage, and productivity continues to decline in America, and we’re reaching an age where we should be getting more productive than ever, post-generative AI and everything else, and skills are a huge part of that. Now, the biggest challenge is you’ve sort of got to go and educate people about the concept of apprenticeships, what they can be, what they represent, both companies and individuals. And if you look at Multiverse, as well, apprenticeships are a core part of what we offer, but there are also opportunities to retrain, reskill, and just build this muscle that everyone needs to be learning, and everyone’s jobs will change. Governments are interested. It’s one of the few issues that unites left and right, at the moment, in America, where politics, as we know, is deeply divided. But there’s yet to be a politician say, “I am going to make this a core plank of my policy approach.”
Fuller: Well, the logic, Euan, for developing work-based learning programs in the United States, I think, is compelling. But there are very, very powerful forces arrayed against it—everything from the way companies structure their hiring process and the responsibilities they’re prepared to accept in terms of talent development, to the very, very heavily financed and politically powerful higher-ed ecosystem in the United States. And, of course, as you mentioned, this mania we’ve got for college has been reinforced through cultural messages in the United States and by thought leaders. It’s a platitude that you have to go to college to make it in America, and that’s seeped into parents, families, guidance counselors in high schools. What have you found, since you’ve kind of raised the Multiverse flag in the U.S., what have been the hurdles, and what kind of successes are you achieving in broadening people’s view of pathways to prosperity?
Blair: People know that this current system isn’t working. Right? It’s not at all controversial to say college is broken in terms of how it’s operating at the moment, due to the cost, due to who it excludes, due to relationship with the labor market, everything else. And our apprentices earn an average starting salary of between $60,000 and $70,000 a year. That is a family-sustaining wage for people in a tough economic environment. So increasingly, individuals and their families are able to make quite clearheaded decisions about “what is in my best interest.” So an apprenticeship is not a training program. It is not education. It is a job and training combined, and when you bring those two things together, not only does it make you better at your job, because applying a concept into the workplace and using it to produce a deliverable is beneficial to your employer and beneficial to you and how learning science works. But also, it is something that, if you go to college, there is no guarantee you walk into a job.
Fuller: Well, that’s also very much a question about why employers are so predisposed to value college graduates. And our research suggests that one of the principal motivators is they believe the college graduates will have more refined, what are called “foundational” or “social,” and occasionally, in the older literature, referred to as “soft skills,” communication skills, a theory of the mind, the ability to go into strange situations, perseverance, a capacity to learn. And, of course, those are all at a premium in an environment that features such rapid technological development. But it’s all inferential. It’s all presumed, as opposed to something that’s demonstrated. Tell us a little bit about what you’re doing, the skills you’re equipping people with, and what it takes to get one of your apprentices from an eager learner to that $60,000, $70,000-a-year income level?
Blair: There’s no reason you can only get broader life experiences or learn good communication skills or research skills or building relationships on a college campus. Right? That is something you can learn in any environment, as long as it’s intentionally addressed. As the economic environment changed 18 months ago, we immediately embedded into our all our apprenticeships—accessible to all apprentices—modules on financial literacy and everything from how and why you should open a bank account, to what you should do with your cash, to how to save effectively, and other things. These are not being taught in colleges, generally. They’re not being taught in the education system, K–12, either. So there are big gaps. And there’s no reason you have to be on a campus to learn those things. And if you look at what we do, we try and create T-shaped individuals—so people who have a high level of specialism in one area, but that broad piece at the top where, as their world changes and develops, they still know how to think crucially, how to apply their learning. For an individual apprentice, you’ll apply to Multiverse, and we get an application every 11 minutes, we are probably north of 100 qualified applicants for each career starter apprenticeship we have. And by the way, 25 percent of our apprentices are age 40 or over, so it’s a really interesting mix demographically. [Of the apprentices Multiverse places] globally, over 50 percent are people of color, about 40 percent cover the most economically underserved communities, about an even split on gender. And when you look at their experience, they’ll apply, they’ll undergo assessments with us, and we will match them to opportunities where we think they are predisposed to having a good shot at success. We will help coach them through an interview process, and then we will design our training programs to allow them and their employers to both benefit. The key thing in our apprenticeship model is how you ensure mutual benefit for the individual and mutual benefit for the employer, because addressing those things in tandem is probably the most glaring gap we have at the moment in this current education-to-work model. And as I said, so important to emphasize, our apprenticeships are also open to those in the workplace. We take people, for example, we do programs where we’re reskilling baggage handlers at airlines into software engineering and data analyst roles at those companies, or line cooks and cashiers at fast-food outlets. We did a really successful program with Verizon, where the first cohort who went through that, by the way, saved Verizon somewhere in the region of $5 million, taking people in largely customer success roles and helping move them into tech roles. Because companies want to make investments in those areas; if they can do that with their own people, that’s brilliant. And those people in those sort of often higher-churn, lower-wage areas tend to be more representative of wider America than the people currently in the tech functions.
Fuller: That’s certainly confirmed by our research over the years. Let’s focus on the employer for a second. So you use the example of Verizon and a $5 million savings. We have found, historically, that employers are very demanding, in terms of evidence that there will be a tangible payback, and that if you fall into the trap of saying that investing in apprenticeship will improve your corporate culture, people will be more motivated, you’ll be a better corporate citizen, they’ll hear those messages and embrace them sincerely and say, “Oh, you’re talking to the wrong person; you need to go to our corporate foundation.” But when you’re talking about companies fundamentally changing the way they source talent and spending money to do it, you’re held to a very rigorous standard. What are the origins of those savings? What are the hard benefits that you have convinced your commercial customers to accept? And how are they being measured?
Blair: And I’m glad you called this out, because I’m deeply wary of the intangibles for exactly the reasons you said. It’s not that they’re not important, it’s just that you need to demonstrate to employers that this is something they should be engaging with at a board, chief executive level. Right? It is that meaningful. We actually recently did the biggest audit of about 10,000 apprentices and identified they had saved $700 million for their employers. And we look at ROI in a number of ways, and that’s a substantial figure. Right? We look at retention, so apprentices last about twice as long in their first job as graduates. They’re more likely to be loyal, they’re more likely to stay. They get, on average, in many places, better performance reviews, actually, and managers appreciate and value their contribution. We find that productivity gains are material and pretty easy to measure, because most companies, especially more traditional companies that are not tech companies, are in the throes of undergoing that digital transformation and trying to become tech companies, themselves. The cost to them of having really expensive but small numbers of data and technical people doing low-level tasks—because they don’t have a good level of data literacy and the organizational technology literacy in organization—are meaningful. We work with a big global auto manufacturer who, by introducing our data analytics program, identified several inefficiencies in their production line in one factory that allowed them to ship an additional 700 cars a week. Right? You can translate this into cents at dollars at scale actually quite easily, because we built our platform with that in mind from the very beginning. We knew it was never going to be enough to say, “Employers, do this, because it’s a good thing to do,” or “It’s the right thing to do,” or “You can just reach more diverse talent,” all of which is, of course, important, but it’s not existential unless you can frame it in monetary terms.
Fuller: Well, I think there’s going to be a new incentive for employers that is just beginning to get realized, which is that the most recent Supreme Court finding on affirmative action programs at universities, as Justice Gorsuch said in his concurring opinion, the law, as it applies to corporations is functionally indistinguishable of the laws that apply to universities. And if many companies find that the significant investment they’re made in specific programs to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion are no longer tenable legally, they’re going to have to think of mechanisms to advance that purpose that pass legal muster and scrutiny. I am providing skilling programs to my lower-wage workers who, coincidentally, happen to be more diverse. Let’s go to the student side. What are you teaching them, and why are you teaching them those things?
Blair: We’re very clear that, if you’re undergoing an apprenticeship, you’re learning something that’s generally interesting. You may well want to learn it, but it is going to be crucial to your job and your ability to do it effectively. So it’s the things that employers need. So we did a lot of analysis around where are employers saying they’re most underweight in skills, where are some of the biggest demand areas? It will not surprise you to know that data skills and technical skills were among the most critical, but also things like digital marketing and project management and other skills, which we also cater for. And we don’t just train them in those kind of specific fields on their own, we also teach them broader skills. We talked about communication, we talked about things like financial literacy, how to navigate your first few months in the workplace, how to have challenging conversations. For us, the key is, is this a greater unlock for your career mobility and success and for your employer? If it is, then we should be teaching it. The crucial thing, though, about our learning experience is, we’ve become obsessed with people who are qualified in theory. We like to show that you are qualified in practice. Right? You are actually able to demonstrate you can do your job better as a consequence of the things that you have learned, and people will often learn, let’s say, Python in data analytics or data science, through the actual practical application of using Python to go and solve a problem that their line manager needs them to go and solve. So it’s just the “so what” is incredibly tangible and that’s one of the reasons that our apprentices are very sticky. Ninety-three percent, by the way, stay long-term with their employer, which means over two years after completing.
Fuller: Are you working with the vendors of technology as you develop curricula? Or is that all done in-house? Or is that done in conjunction with the end account and the employer?
Blair: So we have a learning team and a learning sciences team internally. We create content. We do also curate it, and we’re increasingly working in partnership with others. The fact is, there are a series of micro and professional credentials that are valuable to people in the workplace and have cache. And it’s important, especially as it’s become more crucial than degrees, in terms of demonstrating not what you know, but what you can do.
Fuller: Now, if I’m making the transition from education to employment—so I’m not a 40-year-old—when I start a Multiverse program, am I sponsored by an employer? Or is that program customized for an employer? Or am I building a portfolio of generically marketable skills, and once I’ve completed that program, then I’ll be introduced to clients of Multiverse for potential placement?
Blair: We deliver the training in conjunction with the job, built around, yes, broad principles, but that employer’s specific needs. So we’re big believers in guided learning. I often say our learning is not self-directed very deliberately, it’s instructor-led and supported, because the job of the coach that we use—that’s a core part of our model—is to actually work with line managers, understand that employer, the analysis we’ve done on the way, and then see what will be most valuable to them. We tend to describe our programs as configurable, as opposed to customizable, because you’re broadly getting the same program, but the context is different, and that different context actually matters and adds up to something.
Fuller: You’re really speaking to two very important deficits in the way we approach skills development in the U.S., historically. One is that we overemphasize technical skills but underemphasize context. So particularly, a younger worker without a lot of experience in the workplace is very adept at something but hasn’t ever applied it in an actual setting and can be … particularly if that setting is one that is more diverse than they’re used to dealing with, in terms of age and race. Many people don’t realize that, certainly, major metros in the United States, a lot of young people making the transition from education to employment are moving from an almost monochromatic educational setting and neighborhood setting. We think of being comfortable with diversity, historically, as a majority anxiety and ineptitude, versus a minority, but if the first non-minority majority setting you’re in is your first job, that could be very disabling and very confusing. And similarly, that you have to invest in the preparation of the employer and the supervisor to successfully onboard an apprentice—and the notion that that would be driven by what that supervisor needs and what they’re looking for—will greatly enhance their openness to it, because they have a higher certainty that they’ll get a worker that’s going to be productive and help solve their problem.
Blair: And that is the practical thing most hiring managers care about: Is this person going to be able to contribute meaningfully to my team, support me in my objectives, do the things I need them to be able to do? And so, the more we can demonstrate that is the case and actually prove and evidence it and contrast that with a model where you can’t do that, the greater the cache and sort of forward march of apprenticeships.
Fuller: So there’s an obscure term for people who are not all that familiar with apprenticeship in the United States, which is a difference between a registered apprenticeship and one that isn’t registered. How have you approached that? Maybe you could help our listeners understand that distinction and how it is influencing the way you’re approaching this market.
Blair: So the simplest way to put it is a registered apprenticeship is registered with the Department of Labor, and there is a process you go through in order to sort of gain that accreditation, versus an informal apprenticeship, that there isn’t in America as there is in Britain. I think this is an important step to be taken, at some point, a definition in the law of what an apprenticeship is. So in Britain, for example, a company can’t just say, “We’ve got a three-month onboarding program that we’re going to call an apprenticeship,” because it’s actually a discrete category of work and employment. Now, we have gone largely the registered apprenticeship route, because we think there is value in having a formal, recognized qualification that is portable and useful, in and of itself. That said, we try not to be dogmatic about it. The fact of the matter is, employers struggle to engage, sometimes, with the registered apprenticeship system, because there’s a lot for them to navigate there. Actually, one of the things that’s helped in this regard is, we basically do all of that for the employer. We say that we’ll handle the registration, the credentialing, and everything else, so you don’t need to worry about it. Because it matters to most people; it matters particularly to the participants, actually. They have something that is genuinely recognized.
Fuller: And how does your thinking apply to that 40-year-old apprentice? Is that an apprentice, usually, that’s being supported by their employer? Or are they trying to add a credential, perhaps, so they can broaden the jobs they’re qualified for, up to and including being qualified for promotion inside their employer? And are there instances of registered apprenticeships in the United States that encompass that mid-career person?
Blair: Absolutely. So they do, there’s no sort of age or employment status gate, which actually, I think, is important and helpful. I mean, about half our apprentices in the U.S. are upskilling or reskilling, which is an important thing. And when you look at the apprenticeship journey for someone who is, say, 40, one thing that is consistent across all of our apprentices is the programs are paid for by employers. So we’re actually quite ideological on this. Let’s remove the financial barrier. Employers benefit—we can show how they benefit—so we don’t have people self-fund their own apprenticeships, and it shows an important commitment on part of that employer, but also a recognition that they are getting something in return for their investment.
Fuller: Euan, one thing we found in a lot of skills development interventions in the United States is that, even though the program is well curated and well delivered, students can’t complete it any more than they could a degree program, because other things are going on in their lives. They have caregiving responsibilities, they have to earn to pay their bills, support their families, even if they’re supporting their parents, grandparents, whatever else, and that is often addressed through this notion of kind of “surround services.” Is that part of what Multiverse is applying? How do you think about that? And how do you think about being able to make the program personalized enough so that the unique circumstances and challenges the learner’s facing can be addressed?
Blair: So some parts of that are actually sort of uniquely addressed by the model. So, for example, not only is there no debt, there’s no opportunity cost through the model, because you are earning from day zero. But, crucially, we really focus on our community. And this is important, because apprentices are able to guide and mentor all their apprentices. We have events, we have professional networking, we have advice on everything on how to access housing through how to access shared services. We have mental health support, we identify and then address additional learning needs—everything from kind of dyslexia and dyspraxia to Asperger’s and autism. And so, we’ve thought about this quite a lot. Our community has some incredible events, as well. We actually had Youngme Moon and some of the Harvard Business School faculty support with office hours. We’ve had Paul George, NBA all-star, address our community, Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the U.K., do the same. There’s a series of things that we do that make this about more than just work and learning, because that is important. You talked before about cultural cache that college has. So much of that is because people have a sort of inherent identity in being a college student, and you need that to exist here for it to work.
Fuller: There’s one constituency that I’ve often been interested in understanding their approach to this, which is the public sector as employer. The public sector has been an advocate for apprenticeship. The public sector—certainly policy makers and political leaders—are very quick to endorse these concepts. But state and local governments in the United States don’t seem to demonstrate much uptake on this. A bit of the chef not eating his or her own cooking or following his or her own recipes. Have you been approaching governments and are you getting any uptake? And what’s the picture in the U.K., in Britain, specifically, on apprenticeships in government?
Blair: So in the U.K., the government did this well, because they thought about it from the outset. So they set a target for the public sector to have 2 percent of their workforces be registered apprentices, which meant that there were targets and accountability that existed around it. And we do a huge amount with the NHS, the National Health Service in the U.K., with the Ministry of Defence, with the Home Office, with lots of other branches of government, Ministry of Justice. And in the U.S., we are approaching very similar public-sector bodies and having productive conversations. So, for example, the federal government dropped their degree hiring requirements. In Pennsylvania, you’ve had them say only 5 percent of jobs you need a college degree for, that you’re going to apply for at sort of the state government level. Those are positive moves. They don’t mean much unless there is a genuine focus on, “Well, we need to now adapt the alternative. Right? And we need to be changing our processes and how we operate.” Again, there is a conceptual agreement; it’s just now translating it into action.
Fuller: I think with government, it is necessary that gratuitous degree requirements being stripped out, but hiring is a relative phenomena, and if I’ve always hired college graduates, and I have college applicants, simply because the restriction is not removed does not mean I’ll opt for someone without a degree if I have a degree alternative facing me. We’re speaking in October of 2023, where the U.S. certainly—and I think the commercial world, generally—has embraced a new obsession, not one with college degrees, but one with artificial intelligence. That companies are being asked by their boards, by shareholder analysts, whatnot, what’s their strategy? And, of course, quite a lot of conversation about how AI is going to affect work and the process of getting work. How are you thinking about AI? How does it currently influence what Multiverse is doing? And how do you see that evolving?
Blair: We find it incredibly useful—generative AI, in particular—in terms of how we deliver both efficiency and efficacy of the learning. So we use it, for example, to augment our coaches. Right? They effectively have a virtual teaching assistant that is incredibly valuable, given the amount of work they need to do with apprentices. We use it to help identify—at this point, broadly personalized, but will become increasingly personalized pathways for people as they track their way through an apprenticeship—where they need to look again and what they need to spend more time on. So we’ve found, in terms of augmenting and enhancing the learning experience, AI—and generative AI, in particular—has been essential. It’s incredibly useful as we start to make decisions around admissions and potential for success for people, and we start to plot out long-term value of programs and use that data that we’re getting. That is pretty unique, to kind of go and then feed better outcomes for individuals and employers. And on a very sort of practical level, we took the decision earlier in the year, over the summer, to basically implement an AI training module, called “AI Jumpstart,” in every apprenticeship. So we now consider it an expectation that each one of our apprentices will undergo AI training that’s built around AI literacy, AI ethics, and crucially, use cases for AI.
Fuller: Well, it’s also to be hoped that the type of speculative venture capital investment that’s going into other elements of the skills and hiring ecosystem will be developing at a rapid rate and create a more salubrious environment for apprenticeship and for Multiverse’s clients, specifically, as we see things like AI targeted at reducing what are called “matching problems,” where people end up in jobs which they’re ill-suited to or don’t like, or similarly, that we can use it to solve what is an abiding problem in the United States, which is the lack of a standard skills taxonomy. Euan, tell us a little bit how you see Multiverse evolving, both in the United States and in Britain and elsewhere in the next three to five years.
Blair: So it’s an important thing we’re spending a lot of time on. Multiverse as a platform, and not simply as a kind of institution to go into apprenticeship, is incredibly important. We want to allow others to be able to build on some of what we’ve built as they look to launch different kinds of apprentice programs. We want to expand into new fields. You can cover much broader areas over time, by the way, which could include every type of apprenticeship. Because the fact is, if you get the framing of programs right, and you can demonstrate ROI, the kind of cadence of a program, various milestones along the way, assessment at the start and at the end, and that it’s effective, that can be applicable much, much more broadly than where we’re applying it today. We have a short-term goal to get to 100,000 apprentices, which starts to become a really quite meaningful scale, so you’re influencing the direction of the workforce. And the problems we’re talking about around equitable access to economic opportunity and skills shortages and productivity and everything else affect most of the world’s economies. So there’s no reason this should not be international.
Fuller: Well, Euan Blair, Founder and CEO of Multiverse, the innovative leader in commercially oriented apprenticeship in the United States, thank you for joining us on the Managing the Future of Work podcast and being our guest on our 200th episode.
Blair: Great to be a part of it. Thank you. Very good. 200th episode. Congrats, by the way. That's brilliant.
Fuller: We hope you enjoy the Managing the Future of Work podcast. If you haven’t already, please subscribe and rate the show wherever you get your podcasts. You can find out more about the Managing the Future of Work Project at our website hbs.edu/managingthefutureofwork. While you’re there, sign up for our newsletter.