Conflict Transformed: From Discord to Opportunity
Have you ever considered that conflict might unlock paths to personal growth and stronger connections? In this episode, I explore the landscape of conflict, showcasing its potential as a catalyst for positive change when navigated with insight and understanding.
Listen in as I dive into the biological, psychological, and social dynamics that shape our responses to conflict, offering a blend of personal experiences and scientific research. I’ll also provide practical strategies for dispute resolution, emphasize the significance of empathy, and highlight the opportunities that often arise when conflict is present.
And as with everything I share on the podcast, this is what I believe based on what I’ve read and researched. But please don’t take my word for it. Keep what sticks, discard the rest and for goodness sakes, go out and test drive it!
What You’ll Learn In Today’s Episode:
The inevitability of conflict and the importance of facing it.
How our biological and psychological makeup influences our response to conflict.
Practical strategies for managing and resolving disputes.
The role of empathy and understanding in transforming conflicts.
Techniques for preventing unnecessary disputes and fostering positive interactions.
Ideas Worth Sharing:
“Everyone knows that conflict is inevitable, so why do we sink so much energetic capital into avoiding or denying it, which, or course, only serves to create even more conflict?” - Christina Sestan
“Our collective lack of conflict savvy is both fascinating and shocking.” - Christina Sestan
“How much agency do we actually have around how we actually respond to aggression?” - Christina Sestan
“What if the way you think it should be is different from the way I think it should be and that is just fine?” - Christina Sestan
“What if we knew that conflict was just a signal for us to just slow down a bit and really try to understand one another because we know our version of events is partial at best?” - Christina Sestan
Resources:
Connect with me: Instagram
Subscribe & Leave a Review in Apple Podcasts!
Have you subscribed to The Squeeze yet? If not, I would love if you do so you don’t miss a thing! Subscribe here and leave a review.
Find The Squeeze wherever you listen!
-
Speaker 1 0:01
Hey, it's Christina. Thanks for joining us. And welcome to the Squeeze. So you avoid conflict. Welcome to the club. Haven't seen you at the meetings, you million years ago, in another lifetime, I was driving into work, and I was feeling sick in my guts, not sick, like ill, just sick, because I didn't want to go, I didn't want to deal with what I knew would be waiting for me, and it wasn't like this day was particularly unique from a string of previous ones. It's just things had gotten pretty bad with a colleague, actually. She was technically my boss, but well, I'd been ignoring that fact for a while, and as far as I was concerned, I could do the job as well as her, and in some cases better. I generally went over her head for most things, preferring to deal with my general manager, who tended to grant me a lot of autonomy, much to my boss's chagrin. I realize now how frustrating my actions must have been for her. She was my boss, and in retrospect, did have a lot more education and experience than I did. We shared an office, which made things worse, being in such close quarters. I suppose, in an effort to reassert her rank, she'd started asking a lot of questions and sitting in on my meetings, and it drove me nuts. The cycle was becoming rapidly more frustrating. She would assert her rank, and I would resist, and around and around it would go. I think we could both feel the intensity building, but I also think neither of us really knew what to do about it. So we stuffed our uncensored thoughts, defaulting to more of a passive-aggressive tug of war, and I think to survive as long as I did in this downward spiral, I'm pretty sure my friends, family, and some of my allies in the organization ended up paying a pretty big price just listening to my continual bitching and complaining, because that's what we resort to, isn't it? The pressure has to go somewhere, and I guarantee someone somewhere along the line probably said to me, you know, go talk to your boss directly, but that was the opposite of what I wanted, so I kept stuffing it until one day I didn't. I wish I could remember the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was over 25 years ago, and I can't even remember the names of half the people I worked with, let alone the issue that broke us that day. It was a perfect storm. We'd both reached our limit, and there was no longer anything stopping us from crossing over into aggression. Voices rose, words became harsher, and I do believe we actually escalated to yelling. This is probably the one and only time I've ever been in a fight where I've yelled, though my husband might beg to differ, but he's not on the podcast, so forget him. It's not like my boss and I were in some soundproof bubble that day, either. Our colleagues already on alert to the grievances that were building between us, they were probably sitting in their offices, gripping their arm rests tightly, anticipating God knows what, lot of ugly fallout. The apex of our conflict probably only lasted a few minutes before it ran out of steam, and that was followed by tears and confessions and apologies and hugs, and to call it dramatic would be an understatement. We did land on some shared understanding that day, mutual respect, because from there we worked well together. We'd even managed to unearth some pretty problematic patterns that were originating from the failings of our higher-ups. You could even say we became allies, and all of this is, of course, great, but at what cost was the juice really worth the squeeze? I wish I could say yes, but no, not even close. There's a reason I'm able to recall all of this all these years later. It was traumatic, and there had to have been an easier way to get to the same outcome. So, knowing what I now know, I cringe remembering how this played out. The pain and discomfort that I had to go through that day likely resulted in an overabundance of caution moving forward.
Speaker 1 4:33
I'm sure I became super watchful for signs of conflict in future partnerships, doubling down on anything I could do to smooth things over, push them aside before they had a chance to grow. That's probably where I started cultivating so many of those little phrases I carried around in my head. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Things like, well, I'll just let it go, it's not worth a hassle, or things will blow over, or I don't want to make a big deal out of this. Or I'd rather not get riled up. I bet you've used some of these yourself. Am I right? Our collective lack of conflict savvy is both fascinating and a bit shocking to me. Like so many others, I grew up learning bad habits, bad conflict habits in particular, tense silences punctuated by slamming doors, followed by a few off days, followed by everyone apparently forgetting their anger and going back to normal, except they didn't really, and being the hyper-empathic kid that I was, this always felt like an agonizing game of let's pretend that just negated the pile of grudges and gripes that I could see growing higher and higher by the day, so of course my parents' eventual divorce definitely didn't come as a surprise. It's really easy to stand here and shake my head and wonder at our insecurity. Everyone knows, of course, that conflict is inevitable, so then why do we sink so much energetic capital into avoiding or denying it, which of course only serves to create even more conflict. Do you remember that online video of the toddler spraying herself in the face with garden hose, screaming and crying, and trying to get away from the spray, unaware that she was the one holding the hose? Yeah, that's us. As with most of the mysteries that I'm drawn to unpack surrounding human nature. I like to take a big step back and consider a much larger historical lens on our general capacity for conflict and aggression as humans. There is, of course, a very obvious threat, thread, I should say, of violent aggression, and that can be traced all through recorded history, and, of course, even well before, according to paleo anthropologists who examine the fossilized remains to better understand culture and behavior over millions of years, it seems that we're pretty wired for it. Of course, we're not the only species. In a podcast episode of Decoding the Gurus that I was listening to earlier this week, Matt Brown and Chris Cavanaugh were discussing the behavior of macaque monkeys at the Jigo Kadani Monkey Park in Japan. You've probably seen videos of these monkeys, they're the ones sitting in the natural hot springs, you know, they have like snowflakes peppering their fur, and their faces are all red from the steam. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check it out, it's pretty cool. Well, it turns out that the spa experience is not exactly egalitarian for the macaque troupe, and on his recent trip to the hot springs, Brown reflected that it was only the Alpha family that got to take advantage of the hot springs, while the rest of the troupe huddled nearby, trying to keep warm. Matt referred to these macaques in particular, and monkeys in general, as bastards. I thought that was funny. I've seen footage of the violence inherent in chimpanzee societies, particularly when it comes to the coordinated assaults against rival troops. These are during territorial conflicts, and these often result in pretty horrific murder. And chimp aggression extends, of course, beyond the male domain, and adult females also become targets of regular aggression during these confrontations, it's actually quite disconcerting to watch. It's something that's so familiar to our own grisly history, but lest I imply a closer linkage to chimps than actually exists, our evolutionary divergence occurred something like five to 7 million years ago. We share ancestors for sure, but over the millennia, our species have evolved to become very unique from one another. It's just very interesting to consider the fact that humans don't have the lock on being bastards from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Our ability to survive requires us to be able to prevent others from harming us, and it seems obvious that at times that's going to entail a little aggression.
Speaker 1 8:44
In a University of Minnesota paper entitled The Biological and Emotional Causes of Aggression, the researchers argue that if aggression helps in either our individual survival or in the survival of our genes, then the process of natural selection may well cause humans to be aggressive, though they go on to point out that, quote, just because we can aggress does not mean we will, end quote. It seems that the cost of aggression increases, particularly if the others aggress back. Evolutionary principles also suggest that we should be less likely to harm those who are genetically related to us than we are to harm others who are different. Just over 400 years ago, philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that humans are naturally brutish, and it is only by the grace of societal constraint that our aggressive forces are subdued. But 150 years later, Jean Jacques Rousseau swung the other way, arguing that our tendencies are innately more gentle, but have become more aggressive because we've been taught to be this way. So, who's right in The Better Angels of Our Nature? Why violence has declined, author Steven Pinker writes, quote, "Believe it or not, and I know that most people do not, violence has declined over. Long stretches of time, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species' existence. End quote. If his book were not so well documented, I might be inclined to doubt his thesis, but he makes a pretty compelling case. So, how much agency do we really have? Then, conflict is clearly an inevitability, but how much agency do we actually have around how we respond to aggression in others, and of course in ourselves. To provide a bit of a frame, I'm going to consider the various biological, psychological, and social adaptations that we've been equipped with to navigate and manage conflict. I'm going to start with a little tour around our biological response to conflict, because it's the ball wart driving avoidance, and something I'm pretty confident you know something about. It's often called emotional hijack, and for good reason. The amygdala, a key emotional processing center in the brain, becomes highly activated when it senses a threat in our environment. It does this through rapid and automatic assessment of sensory input. The assessment is influenced by numerous factors, including innate evolutionary predispositions that might signify danger, such as loud, sudden noises or threatening postures. Automatic reactions that most of us would have, many online videos capitalize on involuntary reactivity for humor, akin to using an air horn to startle someone who's sleeping. Ha ha ha, pretty funny, unless of course it's you. But other factors that influence the amygdala as activation come from learned experiences. The classic example you've likely heard is once burned, twice shy, but the list of learned experiences is long, and it varies from individual to individual, make making it really tricky to predict, and why we're often caught off guard. Learned experiences that lead to what is sometimes referred to as conditioned responses include all kinds of trauma, negative social situations, and many types of cultural conditioning. From my earlier example, I was triggered in spite of the fact that the thing triggering me, in this case, my tumultuous conflict with my boss was not actually life-threatening, but because I'd had early childhood experiences where disagreement sometimes led to volatile and emotionally charged situations that were super scary to me as a kid, I likely developed a deep-seated association between arguments and a sense of threat or instability. It was the echoes of these early associations that probably contributed to my reaction being so obviously out of proportion to the reality in that current moment. And by the way, that's a really good clue when you want to do some sleuthing around in your own history, in what context would you describe your reactions as a little heartier, shall we say, than called for? Once my amygdala was aroused back then with my boss, good luck turning that sucker off. It triggered the release of adrenaline and cortisol from my adrenal glands, which rocketed to my bloodstream, preparing me to fight or flight. My voice rose, along with my blood pressure and my heart rate, and likely I had clenched fists, and all the large muscles of my legs were ready to spring into action.
Speaker 1 13:15
My prefrontal cortex, meanwhile, was still hitching up the horse and buggy, its higher order reasoning relegated temporarily to the back burner, and even if one of my colleagues had come into the office and told me to calm down, I doubt I would have been able to. Biologically, I wasn't really at choice. I'm guessing you know a little something about what I'm referring to. You must have had an experience like this at some point, where you find yourself standing around afterwards, sort of shaking your head and wondering what the hell just happened. Our inability to think clearly during these times just emphasizes the primal nature of our emotional responses in challenging situations. We're literally wired to survive, and taking a moment to acknowledge that can make the whole conflict management thing feel well daunting, but it turns out that we can use that understanding to our advantage when it comes to identifying strategies that will actually help us more on that a little bit later. Hey, you're listening to the Squeeze, and if you like what you're hearing, there's a whole world of citrus couching to discover. We've got an online leadership program, it's called Citrus You, and it features those three key tools you need to be a better leader, well, to be a better human. We also have a number of mini learning bundles that you can get into, and there's plenty more. If you're interested, you can follow us on Instagram, or check out our website@www.citruscoaching.com And the show resumes now. Before we get to strategizing, let's take a quick look at conflict. From a psychological and a social perspective, some of our evolutionary adaptations in these areas come in handy when it comes to approaching conflict more effectively. Emotional regulation, that's a psychological technique that includes practices like mindfulness and deep breathing and cognitive reframing, and those are all used to engage the prefrontal cortex even after the amygdala has been activated. Reframing is a simple, not to be confused with easy process of challenging your current thinking, your perspective, or your story that you hold about the situation. It's a form of metacognition, where you're willing to be curious about how you're thinking, and not just thinking that my boss is a hack who's holding me back because she's jealous of me. See, how stupid that sounds when I say it out loud. While it may not have eliminated the initial amygdala hijack in my case, I probably sailed right past many tiny gaps where I probably could have taken some steps that would have severely lessened the amount of drama and suffering that we went on to experience by simply remembering to breathe, for instance, I could have built in just enough of an air pocket to recognize what was taking shape, and then you know, headed things off at the past before the yelling started. Empathy is another important evolutionary adaptation that facilitates our ability to understand others' perspectives and be more open to resolution. I'll reference a basic technique later that can be really effective at heading things off of the pass. Also, socially, we've evolved into complex societies with cultural norms that help us navigate conflicts with general guidelines for at least keeping things civil, at least compared to something like the Wild West gunfights at the OK Corral. Our capacity for cooperation and social bonding, and the formation of alliances has also played a crucial role in our evolution, and that contributes to group cohesion, where speedy and productive conflict resolution is actually in everyone's best interest, and where, in my example, the people around us may actually have stepped in at some point, recognizing that our dispute was threatening the larger team need in spite of all these possibilities to navigate conflict without literal or metaphorical bloodshed. Why do we invest so much energy in avoidance? I'm going to use the same frameworks of biology, psychology, and sociology to answer. Socially, conflict makes us envision damaged relationships and hurt and disharmony, and oh my god, this is going to be so awkward at work tomorrow, and Who wants that? It's just not worth it. Remember those little mind messages from before, it's not that big of a deal. I'll just let it go.
Speaker 1 17:35
Well, that's where they come from psychologically, the emotional toll and the stress that conflicts can bring up just feels exhausting, and Who wants more drama on top of their already busy schedule? Thanks, and no thanks. And biologically, this should be pretty obvious by now, from everything I've already explained about the amygdala hijack. Simply put, our brain is really biased towards safety and social cohesion, and anything that falls outside that definition, which, depending on who we're talking about, can be a very narrow definition, can trigger the release of stress hormones, which might be why we sometimes have those days when we don't even want to leave the house, because everyone is making me so angry, maybe that's just me, so you avoid conflict. Welcome to the club. Haven't seen you at the meetings. Grab a donut and let's go. It's time to put on your big boy, your big girl pants, and talk about how to stay, how to say yes to conflict in a healthy and appropriate way. There are seemingly infinite amount of different approaches to conflict available out there in internet land. Google it if you don't believe me. I googled conflict management strategies in the workplace, and I got 390 6 million results in under one second. Don't you love Google stats? Might this number be some kind of indicator of how desperately we're seeking help because of how intolerable conflict feels to us, many of the approaches to conflict management that I've come across entail a progressive approach laid out in stages or steps that, from my experience, doesn't really hold a lot of basis in reality, particularly when the conflict in question is more than just a little pinch, because when it's a little pinch, who cares, we don't need a model, I don't really have any skin in the game if you accidentally walk away with my pen. Big deal. But for more complex conflict, I actually believe these models are problematic for reinforcing unrealistic expectations that could so easily fall short and land people in more hot water than they were expecting. Any model that doesn't take into account our human inevitability for amygdala hijack, when all bets are off in terms of any help coming from our higher thinking brain, they're actually doing us a disservice. It's not that a logical and progressive approach isn't useful, of course it is. We need both, but unless you're willing to get your hands just a. Little bit dirty in the heat from your amygdala triggers and biological responses to threat, you're just going to be really thrown when you find yourself deep in this territory with a friend or colleague, or God forbid, your spouse, as something turns progressively more contentious. Here's a little bit of homework, if you want to try something to help you get your hands a bit dirty, like if you want to practice with a bit of heat, think of something that is bugging you in one of your partnerships at work. Let's, let's avoid the home front for the time being. So, don't pick something as big as the example that I shared at the beginning, but something smaller, something like someone speaking over you in a meeting, maybe not being CC'd on an email that contains project information you need, maybe not getting the help you requested from your boss a week ago, something like that. Now close your eyes and just imagine that person sitting across from you, and share your gripe or frustration with them. Just put it out there, say it, you It, and take a breath now, and just take stock of what you're feeling as you do this. Imagination, of course, is not reality, but in a lot of ways, techniques like this can be really useful for helping you to desensitize your trigger just a little bit. What you're in effect doing, and you can continue to do this multiple times with the same situation is you're exposing yourself to tiny little bits of trigger in small doses, in much the same way that you might go through immunotherapy to decrease, like reactivity to pollen or bee venom or something. You're working to reduce the emotional response you feel towards the interaction. Albert Bandura, he's a psychologist and a Stanford professor, he's also Canadian. You might have heard of him.
Speaker 1 21:44
He's well known for his work in the area of self efficacy, which is simply defined as a person's belief in their ability to succeed in a particular situation. In an online article from Simple Psychology that was entitled Bandura's Self Efficacy Theory of Motivation in Psychology, author Gabriel Lopez Garrido describes something called imaginal experiences, and that's where one imagines themselves behaving effectively or successfully in a given situation. This kind of approach is also commonly found in sports psychology, and it's part of what makes up the little exercise that I gave you before. In terms of psychological approaches, a good rule of thumb, when you find yourself in a triggering standoff, is to remind yourself that the other person is likely as invested in their version of events as you are in yours, as committed to their position as you are to yours. Remember, before, when I was referencing empathy, this is what I'm talking about. A good practice is to simply stop and breathe, and just notice your level of investment in this moment. How focused you are in your own position, and being right. Notice what that feels like. If you can tell yourself in your head, this is what is happening for the other person right now. I appear to them like they appear to me, this is not problem solving. It's meant to shift the tenor of the discussion by short circuiting your trigger with empathy. On more than one occasion, I've seen this realization dramatically change the direction of a discussion. Reframing is another psychological approach you can take advantage of in a conflict situation, but let me step back to an even bigger invitation that will bode well for a lot of potentially prickly situations in your future. I want to invite you to embark on a bit of a practice of being curious about the stories you make up in your head all day long, but which you don't really spend much time checking out. We all do it, and it's referred to as sense making, it's how we get by in a world where lots of things happen that we can't explain, it lends us a sense of safety and predictability and control, but when was the last time you stopped to tell yourself that unless people actually tell you why they do and say what they do and say, you are guessing, let me repeat that. You are guessing. Might it be that in the conflict you are also guessing about the other person's in brackets diabolical motive? Maybe they didn't actually get up this morning and think, how can I screw this other person over today? Maybe they're just doing their best, same as you, and they got triggered, same as you, not long ago. When I was researching for my online online program called Citrus You, I was pretty gobsmacked to see just how incredibly fallible our mind really is for helping us discern reality. It's very destabilizing when you couple all of our biases and blind spots and mental shortcuts with our partial, at best sensory data, it's a wonder we trust anything we think at all, but we do too much. It turns out the good news is that we can shift our thinking and beliefs about things and people because they're so clearly not carved in stone, and I found that having this kind of orientation more general. They actually negate numerous conflicts from actually getting a foothold and getting bigger. Think about it. Imagine if you walked around knowing you were doing the best you could to understand why things there that you know are the way they are, but that you're pretty sure you don't have the whole story. I mean, if you really, really believe that, maybe you'd start more conversations with things like I'm not sure I'm seeing the situation accurately, so I want to check my story against yours before I react. Of course, once people pick themselves up off the floor, you've set the conditions for a more robust and generative conversation to take root. It's called humility, folks. If you don't believe me, start Googling cognitive biases. A couple more tips. One effective approach is to regularly practice mindfulness and emotional regulation techniques by being aware of your emotional responses and employing calming strategies, such as deep breathing or taking a brief pause. You can help manage the amygdala's instinctive reactions.
Speaker 1 25:59
I've developed an elegantly simple timeout tool that aims to not only remove you from a triggering situation, but then to bring your prefrontal cortex back online as quickly as possible. If you're interested, just DM me, and I'll send you a copy. It's also a great idea to seek support from a trusted friend or a colleague afterwards to help make sense of events. Just make sure you don't manipulate them into colluding with your short-sighted version of events. You can even discuss the issue with the person involved after emotions have settled, as this is going to allow for a bit more of a rational conversation. Developing self-awareness and practicing emotional resilient techniques over time, they're going to contribute to you being able to better handle and mitigate these exaggerated emotional reactions. I want to talk just a little bit about group conflict now, because if you're part of a team or you attend group meetings regularly, you know that there's this kind of low-grade group conflict, or what could even be called group think, and it can eat up a lot of energy. In the book, The Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision Making, Sam Kaner makes an important distinction between what he calls conventional group dialog and participatory participatory groups. In the former, it is the fastest thinkers and most articulate speakers that get all the airtime when others are speaking, people may space out or spend their time rehearsing what they're going to say. Questions can be perceived as challenges, and the speaker often feels as if they've done something wrong when someone asks them a question. A problem is considered solved as soon as the fastest thinkers have reached an answer, and then everyone else is expected to get on board, regardless of whether they understand or not, does this sound familiar? This is pretty normal, and of course, that's the problem, and most people won't challenge this status quo because of all the aforementioned material on conflict avoidance, but by contrast, Kaner describes participatory groups as, wait for it, participating room is made for people to think as they get their ideas out. Opposing viewpoints can simply hang out in the same space, and people know where each other stands to the point that they could accurately represent the point of view that they don't agree with. People listen more because they trust they will be listened to, and problems are not considered solved until everyone who will be affected by the solution understands the reasoning. Take a pause. We are so used to the first example that often the very idea that we could sit in the same discussion holding different positions on something that means quite a lot to both of us seems revolutionary somehow. But what if we had a meeting to talk about how we meet, Kaner offers two broad categories of thinking, and feel free to steal these and share them with your teams. It's pretty obvious when you hear it: divergent and convergent. Divergent is the equivalent of open-ended questions. We're free-flowing ideas suspending our judgment. I've heard this referred to before as green light thinking. Convergent thinking, of course, is a narrowing process, in much the same way closed-ended questions might work. We're sorting ideas now and exercising judgment. While the premise makes good logical sense, I think we can all agree that this is rarely what happens in practice. What we normally see is an inability to get on the same page with one another around where we are in the process, what we're actually talking about, how well we're doing, hearing everyone's ideas, and when we should start, start to converge. And because this is also confusing, it's pretty easy for people to become frustrated and stuck, and then just to check out. As Kaner writes, quote, does anyone even understand what's going on here? End quote. To make sense, Kaner introduces a concept that I've carried with me from my days in my master's program, because it just makes so much sense. Please steal this, because the more you can normalize it, the more you'll transform your meetings and your experience of healthy conflict. The concept is called the Grown Zone. Kaner writes. Is quote, when people experience discomfort in the midst of a group decision-making process, they often take it as evidence that their group is dysfunctional. As their impatient increases, so does their disillusion with the process.
Speaker 1 30:12
People view the groan zone as an impediment and not a naturally occurring phase in the process. He advises groups that can tolerate the stress of the grown zone are far more likely to discover common ground, and common ground, in turn, is the precondition for insightful, innovative co-thinking. End quote. Divergence, conflict, and differences of opinion. What if all of this were normal? What if the way you think it should be is different from the way I think it should be, and that is just fine. And I don't mean finding one of those fine, we'll just agree to disagree when what you're really saying is fine, you're an asshole, and that's never going to change. What if we knew that conflict was just a signal for us to slow down a bit and really try to understand one another, because we know our version of events is partial at best. I know this could start to sound like that old Coca Cola commercial, I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, but I'm serious. I have seen fundamental shifts in the tone and outcomes from previously contentious partnerships, because individuals were willing to extend just a little bit of humility and curiosity sufficiently enough to slip past their overzealous amygdala. I'm going to steal part of a line from a systems theory course that I facilitate, called Power and Systems. Here goes: avoiding conflict is predictable, but not inevitable. Normalizing conflict is not predictable, but it is a human possibility. Until next time, so you've been listening to The Squeeze. Thanks for joining us today. If you want to continue tuning in, don't forget to click subscribe, and as always, we want to hear your thoughts, your comments, your feedback, and challenges. If there's anything you don't agree with. Thanks for joining us. And see you next time.
Unknown Speaker 32:08
Bye.