Skip to main content

Investing in Women, with Adam Quinton

Investing in Women, with Adam Quinton

Episode 27: Investing in Women, with Adam Quinton

Adam Quinton is passionate about diversity and inclusion. And it’s not just talk: he spends his time (and money) investing and advising companies with diverse founders, teaching as an adjunct professor at Columbia, and working as an executive in residence for the Center of Talent Innovation helping companies become more inclusive. In this episode, Adam shares his journey into the start-up space after having a successful career in finance, his view on the importance and value of diverse teams, his advice for companies that want to become more inclusive, his method for evaluating the companies he invests in, and the dangers of stereotypes.

Episode Transcript

00:00 Rachel Griesinger: Welcome to the Ellevate Podcast, conversations with women changing the face of business. And now your host, Kristy Wallace.


00:12 Kristy Wallace: Hello, and welcome to the Ellevate Podcast. This is Kristy Wallace and I am here today with Maricella Herrera.

00:19 Maricella Herrera: Hello, Kristy.

00:21 KW: And today, we also have one of the best guys, a huge supporter of Ellevate, Adam Quinton. He's lots of fun and we go pretty deep on this podcast around everything from stereotypes to investing in women, advising startups, and everything in between. So, it's gonna be an exciting conversation.

00:42 MH: Yeah. Adam is one of those people who A, knows everyone.

00:46 KW: Yes, he does.


00:46 MH: And B...

00:47 KW: He told me when he came in, we have 83 LinkedIn connections in common which... I mean, there you go. Talk about a serial networker, he knows everyone.

00:57 MH: He knows everyone, and he's great. He's really great. He supported us from the beginning. I remember he was one of the first people I saw speaking when I started working here.

01:08 KW: Yeah. So Adam and I, our pasts actually do really cross a few different places. We clearly both love Ellevate and he is also one of the advisors and mentors for 92Y Women in Power as am I. So, just doing everything we can to close the gender achievement gap and get women ahead.

01:31 MH: Yeah. You know it's so great to see men like Adam getting involved in the conversation. And if you have been following the podcast, you will see that Adam is our first male guest on the show.

01:42 KW: Yes, he is.

01:44 MH: Not the last.

01:45 KW: Not the last. Men... It's very important to have men part of this conversation, absolutely.

01:49 MH: It really is.

01:50 KW: Yeah. So today, I know our poll question is about men.

01:55 MH: It is about men. That could go so many ways...


01:57 KW: Who has been... [chuckle] Da-da-dan-dan. [chuckle] I know. Who is the man that's been most influential in your life?

02:05 MH: It's so sweet.

02:07 KW: It is. And I know Adam's been influential in the lives of many. He's mentoring 15 different companies, he's invested in a lot of companies including companies that were founded by many of our members. So, it all comes full circle but really investing in women is the way to go.

02:26 MH: Yeah. So, we asked our members who has been the most influential man in your life, and 53% said their dad.

02:35 KW: Yeah, that's probably how I answered it, too.

02:39 MH: It really has an influence in a woman's career. Her dad and the example, and the relationship. Then 27% said their significant other.

02:52 KW: Good. That's important.

02:53 MH: It's important to have a good partner. Then 6% said, one of my bosses. So I'm assuming that's also maybe a sponsor type situation. And then we have 4% said, some other male family member, and another 4% said their brother. So, family members, mentors, sponsors, bosses, and your significant other.

03:19 KW: Sounds good. Well, let's hear from Adam and hear what he has to say about all this.


03:40 KW: So we always start off the podcast asking our guests to tell us a little bit about their career path introductory. Think it's important to share that as we can see the paths that others led to where they are today. So, can you share your career path with us?

03:56 Adam Quinton: Okay. I'll give you the quick executive summary. I started off in the UK so got a bit of an accent still, but left the UK a while ago, moved to Asia. So I lived in Asia for seven years and then something over 10 years ago, 15 years ago now, moved to the US. So I've been a little bit around the world. And through much that time, I was involved in the banking industry which is... Got a bit of bad press recently but I had a good time, learned a lot, and was pleased that I did that. And really, the last five years I've taken a different direction and been out of that world in the startup world primarily. So, I invest and advise a number of startup companies, 15 in total in fact, and do a number of other things. So, I'm an Adjunct Professor at Columbia which is pretty cool and that's really again, an interesting thing that I enjoy doing. And I'm also an Executive Residence for Sylvia Hewlett at her Center for Talent Innovation. So, I'm helping her and particularly her consulting arm Hewlett Consulting Partners with some of the great work they're doing around diversity in business.

05:04 KW: So, you and I were talking earlier before we started the podcast about that transition from business world and finance to more of the startup space. What was the catalyst for that change for you and was it a hard decision to make?

05:22 AQ: It was hard and easy if that makes any sense, which it probably doesn't, but it was hard in the sense that I moved from a very structured big company environment, and one has to say a reasonably well compensated big company environment to a very unstructured environment in which the form of my day was essentially dictated entirely by me rather than by somebody else. So in many respects, it was easy to say, "Okay. I've been doing this 'traditional career path' for a long time and it's about time I did a change." So that was sort of easy, but then making the transition from that structured corporate world to unstructured, how the hell do I fill my day? How do I justify my existence? That was a bit of a challenge. I think I'm through that now however.

06:11 KW: Yeah. The first time I meant Sallie, Sallie Krawcheck, she said something similar where she said, "I was used to a situation where if I wanted something done I would say it and there's a whole team of people to do it." She's like, "Now if I want something done, I do it." And it's a different... It's a transition going from one to the other certainly.

06:33 AQ: Yeah, it's a big one but it's very rewarding hopefully and I'm sure she would agree that Sallie's found it rewarding in many, many ways. And particularly you can choose the way that you want to make impact in a particular, if you've again had a reasonably long professional career doing things that you wanna do, but crucially things that can have an impact on whatever is your passion, is something that is frankly a privilege to have the chance to do.

07:02 KW: So what are you passionate about?

07:05 AQ: So I've spent the last five years in the startup world focusing on investing in and helping companies with diverse founders particularly gender diverse companies and as I mentioned with Sylvia and the Center for Talent Innovation, I've still got a foot in helping companies and providing at least some sort of advice or thoughts around diversity in a larger organizational context. So whether it's the big startup world or the larger corporate world, that whole how do we make organizations better, how do we make them more inclusive, whether it's a five-person team or a 50,000-person team. I think whether you're the five-person or the 50,000, everybody has challenges and a lot of people sort of know what they are and sort of have some sense of how to get to a better place, but a lot still struggle on execution from A to B in that world.

08:08 KW: Have you seen anything that really works in terms of fostering more diversity particularly in larger company environments?

08:19 AQ: In a larger company environment, my personal view is that the change from wherever you are to a more diverse, more inclusive organization and nobody is in a perfect place, whatever any company is they can become more diverse and more inclusive, certainly more inclusive. So to the extent that nobody is in a perfect place, everybody's on a journey to a better place, I'm very much of the view that that really doesn't happen in any convincing, certainly not any sustainable way, unless it is really, not necessarily driven by, but owned by whoever is at the top of the organization. If the person at the top, whoever that is, the CEO obviously in a corporate context but it could be somebody in an NGO, it could be another large organization with a different structure, but ultimately whoever is "at the top" they have to walk the talk, they have to believe it, they have to live it every day in the way that they communicate with stakeholders whether it's employees, their direct reports whether it's outside organizations or individuals that they have contact with, for a whole bunch of reasons they set the tone from the top. So I think in a very simplistic way, if you don't have that, you're not gonna get anywhere.

09:41 AQ: And if you look in more detail, more granular detail about how you effect change in a larger organization, obviously there's things that you can do. You mentioned the sponsorship programs, obviously that can be very effective and so we've done a lot of research that validates why and how it can be effective. So I'm not saying that is not something that you should do, it's definitely something you should do in many organizations but ultimately you really need that high level drive, I think.

10:07 KW: Yeah. I completely agree with that. So, you mentioned earlier that you are advising 15 companies, investing in some, on the board of some. How did you choose those companies? What is the process that you personally go through?

10:23 AQ: Well that's a pretty difficult question to answer because on the one hand I could give a glib answer along the lines of, "I have a very robust process for identifying possible investment opportunities and I have these 15 criteria and I score companies on those criteria and end up making a decision based on that." What I've come to conclude personally over the four or five years I've been involved in the early stage world is that going back to the point about human capital, you're backing an idea but crucially you're backing the people and again particularly in the startup world in a way that isn't true for larger companies, not as true anyway, what a business does today in startup land isn't necessarily what it does next week and certainly probably it's gonna be doing something different next year.

11:14 AQ: So whether it's the go-to market, whether it's the product or service, faced with market reality and market learning early stage companies in the jargon pivot frequently. And from that point of view, you can devote a lot of thought and analysis to a particular point in time opportunity set for a business, which you should do as an investor, which you should do, but in a couple of years' time if the company is doing something possibly quite significantly different, there is only gonna be typically one common thread from that start point to whatever the kind of reality is which is going to be the leadership team and particularly the founding team. So I've come to the conclusion that that founding team is not just one of a number of factors, it is by far and away the most important factor. So judging whether startup led by Kristy and her maybe co-founders is a viable business in the long run is one thing, but also judging whether, having some judgment as best one can anyway, about whether Kristy and her team have got a number of intangible attributes that will make them successful in a context of a lot of change is as if not more important than this granular researchy stuff that actually Sallie and I both used to do back in the day when we were Investment Research Analysts. So, I've still got that bit in my head, right?

12:43 KW: Sure.

12:44 AQ: But is the founder somebody who's got passion, integrity, drive? Because basically on any startup at some point you're gonna hit a wall and only if you've got passion, drive, commitment and other things are you going to say, "Okay, hit the wall. What do I do? Do I go around the wall, over the wall, just do I knock the wall down? How do I do that?" And that's not something that's easy to identify and predict to advance. So I do my best to try and make a judgment around that.

13:13 KW: You talked about investing in diverse teams. What differences do you see, if any, between having a diverse founding team versus a non-diverse?

13:26 AQ: Well, I'm a big believer not because it's an article of faith, but because it's a matter of fact and record that diverse teams in general whether it's a six-person team in a big company or in a startup, tends to produce, not always, but tends to produce on average better results than a homogeneous team. Again that's well documented, well researched. So, I strongly believe it applies in the startup world because why shouldn't it? It applies pretty much everywhere else. So, you've got that fundamental entry point that heterogeneous teams come up with more innovative ideas, they're better at dealing with problems that, to my point before, isn't always the case. Diversity is, I think in the startup world, very important but I'm conscious to the fact that it isn't, of itself, it isn't a golden ticket to success.

14:20 KW: Sure. And I had first-hand experience to that. My last team at Zeal, we were all very different. And different... There's men and women, different age ranges, different socioeconomic background, different ethnicities. And it was interesting 'cause it certainly I think brought a lot of... And I don't want to call conflict, because it wasn't conflict, a lot of discussion to the table, different viewpoints, "No, I see it this way." "I see it that way." And a big part of it is how that team functions and back to some of your early point, how they function through that decision making process, is it collaborative? Are you respectful to everyone's opinions? Is there a leader who then says, "Alright I'm listening, this is the next step, I'm making that decision"?

15:11 KW: But for us as a business, and particularly a business just starting out, it was really beneficial because we're hearing, it was a health and wellness business, and we're hearing people that were parents and people that weren't and people that were athletes, but also men and women and all the other variances with diversity, and at the end of the day when you're thinking about, what is that product? And as you said, products can evolve and who is that customer? And oftentimes there's many different customer avatars, having the diverse input can really end up being what can be a driver of success with that.

15:47 AQ: I would say the conflict with respect is fine. Conflict as in you and I violently disagree about something, violent not in the sense of we hit each other, but violent in the sense we've got strongly formed opinions. It's fine because that's the way... If I have respect and I'm prepared to listen to what you're saying and think, "Well, she's actually got a point there." And you listen to me and say, "Well, he's got a point there." And you basically learn and change your views, that's the spark of creativity. But what it does, again coming back to the startup context, but also a team in a 50,000-person organization context, is I personally think anyway, that becomes very important that whoever is the leader, so the CEO of the five-person startup, or the chair of the subcommittee at 50,000-person company XYZ that's been charged with doing whatever it is. Whoever that person is can really drive that conflict, if you want to use that word, to a good place, as in make sure all the views get heard, make sure they get heard in a respectful way and make sure people understand that we do have to make a decision. And if it comes to it, this is not a democracy, I make the decision. So, being able to do that is actually a very particular skill that I think is not necessarily recognized as much as it should be.

17:17 AQ: That ability to extract the value from the diverse group, move it forward. Like Adam and Kristy still not necessarily agreeing totally that we're going the right direction, but again respecting the decision of whoever it was to say, "Look, I am the CEO, this is what we've got to do. I've heard you out, but we've got to do something and we've got to do it quickly." And that skill of carrying people with you even if you've had that feisty discussion, is something that again to the intangible, "Do I invest in this company with this leader versus that one?" That's something that's very hard to judge because unless you're sitting in the meeting, seeing it happen, it may be, startup, they don't have meetings they just sit around the table and argue about what they're gonna do. You don't really know how things play out on a day-to-day basis.

18:08 KW: So, there is a generalization that women can be wishy-washy or indecisive in business and not be very... As you're talking about this... Okay, I'm making the decision, I'm standing behind it, let's go. So thinking back to these companies that you are advising, one, have you seen that in business women in general being less decisive than men as a gender stereotype? But two, what are the characteristics that you see in diverse founders, and particularly female founders that are potentially different than white men, and do you see that?

18:52 AQ: Well, stereotypes are a very dangerous thing, and from that point of view, of every example you could count in one direction I could name somebody in another direction, so I'm very vary of that for a whole list of reasons. Not least... Often stereotypes can be very wrong. They typically exist for a reason but by definition they don't apply to everybody and they can be wrong about you or me or whatever. So I am very vary of going down that particular road, but since you asked, I'll just pass a few observations. One would be, when it comes to what I think are the core determinants of success of the businesses that I have looked at. If you are talking about some of the things that I mentioned before like drive, commitment, energy, passion, intelligence, smarts, we have to mention that as well, whether you've got XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, I don't really see any difference. Although I could make the point that women have got more BA degrees than men in the US every year since roughly 1983 and more Masters degrees and PhDs than men, so we could have a little issue around some of the academic qualifications where women clearly do actually incredible well, but anyway, going back to the XY, XX around the key attributes, I don't think there's any. And to the extent that there are issues where women can get stereotyped around presentational style in certain context which is essentially what you are talking about.

20:38 AQ: Obviously if stereotypes exist, then they can play a part in the way either people judge people or indeed been through the phenomenon of stereotype threat, the way that people actually act. If you think that I've got a stereotype of you, it induces potential behaviors in you to react to that stereotype whether I actually have it in my head or not. So I think in the context of what to some extent are second-order issues relative to do I understand this market? Can I drive this business? Those presentational issues can be nontrivial, it'd be wrong to say that they are not nontrivial if you talk to many female startup founders. They will have stories around fundraising, which is where the rubber hits the road for lot of entrepreneurs who are raising outside capital that speak to the fact that they are put into stereotypical buckets whether it's their, to your point, their confidence level. Sylvia's work going back to Center for Talent Innovation, demonstrates that, again, on average women and men don't have different levels of ambition but they express it differently, and I think that's where there's a short circuit in the fundraising world which is to the extent that particularly in the venture world, 94% of venture partners are guys.

22:07 AQ: If they are not sensitive to the ways that different groups, in this case women versus men, present and the way that they express confidence, they can make what I think are not so well-informed decisions. Because they're basically saying, "Well, Adam came in and he's banging the table and he's gonna build his billion-dollar business and he's really confident that he is." And Kristy comes in and she's pretty confident in a less demonstrative way that she's gonna build a $500 million business. What am I gonna do? Am I gonna go with Adam because he is confident and whatever? The fact that Kristy has actually got a more nuanced, thoughtful perception of the opportunity set for her business and and a ultimately more objective and balanced view of the magnitude of the opportunity, often gets lost in the translation and lost in the stereotype of... Well, because she is less strong in the sense of signaling commitment through tone of voice and volume and whatever. Therefore the idea is inherently not as good which is bullshit.

23:17 KW: Yeah. It's so interesting 'cause throughout this conversation I'm thinking of myself. [chuckle] But what is my outward persona and how do people judge you in conversations and meetings as a business leader? Do I instill confidence? Am I a strong decision maker? And I know I am a strong decision maker.

23:41 AQ: Stereotyping yourself there. [chuckle]

23:44 KW: There's something to be said for how you view yourself and then how others view you, and I think oftentimes having that reflection or really making sure that what you're projecting and what others are seeing is matched. So we've talked about business leaders, and we've talked about founders and the belief in a founder is often a big driver in investing in that company and founders having that clear decision-making ability and confidence at a pitch meeting, and there's all of these traits that really go into you as a person and that presence that you bring to the table.

24:29 AQ: But I think, all that said, it's important if you are an individual who has, again, the privilege of making decisions about other people, particularly about making decisions about other people, by which I mean investing in a startup, which is, obviously, the context that we were just dwelling on, but also promoting somebody, recommending somebody for a year end bonus, recommending somebody for an assignment.

25:00 KW: Hiring somebody.

25:01 AQ: Whatever else it is, at those particular points, thinking about people's skills and abilities and competencies and making sure that you have that front of mind when you make whatever that decision is, rather than defaulting as it's too easy to do, not because we're bad people, but just because we're people, and it's the way our brains function, to a more subjective, "Well, he's more forceful in meetings, and she isn't so much, so we'll give him the promotion," when the question should be "How does he or she lead the team, how effective they've been?" How do we actually assess that in an objective way, rather than a qualitative way? I think, looking through the presentational style, which is I'm not saying is not important, and there are certain norms of professional behavior that if you transgress whatever, man, woman or Martian, you're gonna get into trouble and not be respected and not listened to or whatever. So, there are some, again, norms that you've got to be conscious of, but I think being too conscious of how you're perceived can be dangerous 'cause that plays with your head.

26:25 AQ: And again, I think there's a responsibility on anybody who's making a judgement about other people to do that in a way that's as balanced and objective as they can make it and crucially... We haven't really talked about this much, but to the extent that you're aware that, as a human being, you are, what's the right word, riddled with unconscious bias about all sorts of things and trying to think beyond that to more objective measures is very important. Again, not just because it's a good thing to do, but ultimately, if you're making a judgement as a startup founder or as a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or as the middle manager who's gotta make a decision about who to send on an assignment, you're also making a decision about what is best for the company, best for the organization, best for other stakeholders, best for investors, whatever else it is, and to the point about human capital is the most important asset a company has, making those people decisions that allow you to build stronger teams, and be more creative is a core competence, core demand made of anybody with that responsibility.

27:35 KW: Yeah. I, as a hiring decision-maker, and there's research, the mini-me syndrome, you often will hire people that are similar to you. And you oftentimes have to really take a step back and think, "Okay. What are the qualifications? What is the experience? What is some of the other more tangible attributes that we can look at to make sure that the decision's just not based on that relationship?"

28:03 AQ: There's a lot of organizational speak which captures that in a way that most people wouldn't find contentious, but can, nonetheless, be problematic, so quite often, people will say, well, again, going back to the hiring, "We're hiring for culture fit. We want people to fit in our culture." And that can too easily be basically a cover for, to your point, hiring people like me, obviously the people who fit my culture are the people like me. And hiring for culture fit, therefore, can be essentially a way of excusing not increasing diversity, and, certainly if you put that as a dominant, "Does this person fit the culture?" Dominant criteria, then, by definition, you've automatically put up a screen that is gonna exclude a lot of people who look different, sound different, come from different backgrounds. So, again, that's something which, to your point about like likes like, if you make the likes like like, an almost official part of your screening process, it screens a lot of people out who could be those people with the different perspectives, the creative sparks that your organization needs, but for the sake of being in a comfort zone with like likes like, they never get in the door.

29:25 KW: Yeah. So I'm gonna shift a little bit 'cause, of course, Ellevate is a network, and we love networking, and you have a lot of experience with obviously startups, entrepreneurs looking to start companies, any tips for cultivating your network over time and keeping the relationship ongoing?

29:47 AQ: That's a difficult question 'cause again, it depends a lot on your personal style and context, but I would say, more from personal experience than anything, that one thing that it's important to do, it's give before you get. In the sense that if I connect with Kristy on LinkedIn and say, "Can you help me with this?" It's like, "Who the hell is this? [chuckle] Why should I do anything for this guy?"

30:14 KW: But people still do that.


30:15 AQ: Which people do. So that's generally not a very effective way, but finding ways to connect with people whether it's at company events, external events, obviously through a platform like Ellevate which is great at that, finding ways to connect with people in a light touch like, "I'm not demanding something from you now, and how can I help you?" Or, "How can I indicate that I understand you as a person?" So, we meet at an Ellevate event, and we exchange business cards, people still do that these days, and you're interested in XYZ and I see an interesting article and send it to you and say, "I just read this, was thinking of you, it's sort of interesting 'cause it's relevant to your job," or whatever interest you expressed. So I think it's not always true, obviously, but it's important to give before you get, because if you build up the relationship, you build up the goodwill, such that when you have the more pressing ask around like, "I need help with this, can you recommend somebody to do that?" It's well, "Adam did something for me, I'll do something for him," it's an easy bilateral transaction rather than one-way transaction.

31:43 KW: So, I love that.

31:44 AQ: Guys talk about transactions a lot more than women actually, don't they?


31:47 KW: But I love that, and yes, give before you get is I think a mantra that we should think about in all aspects of our life. And that's something that clearly you personify in so many ways. I mean, you are an advisor for the 92Y Women in Power program, you advise startups. I know I've introduced you to people in the past that you've generously given your time and insights to. You're here with us today, so you give a lot. Why is that important to you? And how do we get more people to give before they get?

32:23 AQ: Well, to the last point. If you, again, you're thinking about building your professional brand for want of better description, you're building intentionally a network of people who you can get insights from and help over a period of time, then the individual has to own that ultimately. And some people instinctively get it, some people struggle with it. And I think particularly in the context of, again, trying to get not too deep into stereotypes, but to the extent that generally speaking, not always, but generally speaking, women can be and can be described as less comfortable with networking than guys. There's definitely a gender difference and I used the word 'transactional' before. I had the example of a female founder of a company who rang me up because she was... We had this Skype actually because she was trying to get in contact with a particular person to ask a particular question, was agonizing the best way to do it, and I just said, "Look, stop. So, this is guy mindset here, just ask them. Don't agonize about whether it's gonna affect your future relationship."

33:47 AQ: So, I think there's a difference about how people approach networking by gender which I put in there as a bit of an aside but I think it is an issue and nontrivial. But in general terms, people have got to basically realize that it's essentially the way that stuff gets done. The idea whether you're a man or woman that networking is sleazy and awkward and uncomfortable. A lot of people feel that, it's both genders. Maybe one more than the other but a lot of people feel that but the reality is in a business context, or whatever, it's just the way stuff gets done. That idea that if I give and then I get, it can be as simple as if I've been respectful to the people in XYZ department, and have made a couple of contacts so that when I just need some help I can again walk around and ask them, and they'll do it for me, that is just how stuff gets done in a human context.

34:58 AQ: So, going back to your question again, how do you get more people to do that? Well, ultimately they've gotta make the decision themselves but to the extent that they see other people do it, again, whether it's Ellevate or other organizations, they can provide a forum for people to observe how it gets done and practice, if you wanna call it, in a sort of safe space. So I guess that's a role that organizations can play, and obviously, companies can set up that context as well through things like employee resource groups which are obviously a way to create the ability for people to network in a more comfortable manner 'cause they're not doing it across difference. 'Cause ultimately, I think, the biggest network challenge that people have is networking across difference. So the difference could be gender, it could be a whole host of things, and some of them obviously do visual, we can tell pretty much what each other's gender is, but you could be a veteran.

36:00 AQ: You could have a whole set of experiences that are very different from mine. So, whether it's visible or not visible, the more differences there are, the more difficult networking can be and that's probably where, going back to your question, there's the most difficulty. How do you get people comfortable going across difference, which crucially in a... How do we advance women in organizations if they're underrepresented? Is a big problem, to the extent that unless you've got, again, that gender difference, communicating with each other and networking with each other, then people are gonna stay somewhat separated.

36:46 KW: Yep.

36:47 AQ: If that makes any sense.

36:47 KW: It totally does, it absolutely does. Thank you for joining us on the Ellevate Podcast.

36:53 AQ: My pleasure, been great talking to you, Kristy, and again very honored.


37:00 KW: Thanks so much for listening to Ellevate. If you like what you hear, help a girl out. Subscribe to the Ellevate Podcast on iTunes, give us five stars and share your review. Also, don't forget to follow us on Twitter @ellevatentwk, that's Ellevate Network and become a member. You can learn all about membership and all the great things that Ellevate Network is doing at our website, that's E-L-L-E-V-A-T-E And special thanks to our producer Katharine Heller, she rocks, and to our voice-over artist Rachel Griesinger. Thanks so much and join us next week.



Continue learning with this Ellevate Playbook: