Psychometrics in Coaching. A keynote presentation from Facet5 Live 2022.

Hello, everyone. My name is Ian Florence, and I’m going to talk to you about the relationship between psychometric testing and coaching. Now most of you will know that if you have been involved in testing, it’s the first thing you want is a response. Usually, the very first response people have to the questions. You will also know if you’ve been a coach that the first thing you want is a response, but you want some thought to it. So, what I’m going to do. And I think Sonja is going to do it as well. Is turn on our chat link. And if you have questions, comments, responses, criticism, anything, put it in the chat link. And I know Sonja is going to be looking at that as we go on and raising anything with me that she thinks I ought to answer. We’ll talk for about half an hour, maybe a bit more, and during that time I’ll answer any questions that come up or that I think that exist at that time. And then I’ll invite questions afterwards. I can see pictures of you, but I can’t see you moving. I hope you can see me, and you can see me in my office. As I said, I’m going to talk for about half an hour and I’m going to use the book I’ve written as a structure. I’m not holding this up to sell it, but it came out earlier on this year and it’s about this topic. And the reason I wrote it is because I spent many years as a publisher of tests and then retrained as a coach about five or six years ago. And I come from both sides of the dialogue. I’ll start off with a bit of background about why coaching and testing have actually been rather at war with each other over the last 30, 40, 50 years, where they come from very different places. How that’s changing. And then I’ll give you and hopefully get your reaction to some ideas about how, if you’re coaching, how you can get into testing and how you can use tests to help your Coachees to do a better job. To do what coaching and testing should do. Which is help people get better lives. So let me start from here. This is very simplified. But the overall argument is quite simple. Coaching and testing take two very different views about maximizing human potential. Human health and human happiness. We can typify this in a very simple way. Testing grew from the late 19th century beginnings, and many major tests were published in the 1940s and 1950s. They were hugely influenced by the idea that psychology was a hard science like physics. So those of you who know the 16pf personality test – I knew the author, Raymond Cattell, towards the end of his life and he really felt that what he was doing was the equivalent to Einstein in psychology. He saw the purpose of this was describing human beings in the same way as one would describe subatomic particles. Coaching comes from a completely different background. There’s a very good book in Jenny Rogers series on testing and we can send you details of these things about the dark side of coaching, which is points out that coaching grew out of 60s counterculture and is very humanist discipline. It’s not to do with making decisions about people. It’s about helping them in dialogue to achieve the best of what they want. If you really read the history of it. One of the major areas that produced modern coaching was the West Coast of America. During the 1960s, that couldn’t be more different than, for instance, the people in the armed forces in the 40s and 50s. Who developed testing. For this reason. There’s always been a real antagonism between the two areas in the past. If you look at this very simplified table in front of you, coaching equalises power. The whole idea is that the coach and the Coachee are in dialogue. In assessment a person in a white coat very often makes a decision about somebody else. We go down this on what focus they have in time. What they are trying to do. What they tend to describe. Whether they based on numbers or on words. Whether they are processed done between people or a process done to people. But that was the past. And that’s one of the reasons why we can say that in the past, testing and coaching haven’t really talked to each other as much as they might. That is changing. Those of you who are coaches, and I think quite a number of you are, will know that coaching has become incredibly popular recently and is becoming more and more popular. And there are some very good reasons for this. Whereas when I started in this industry, most development was done through in-person training in which you got lots of people to go to a hotel somewhere, an office somewhere and do a 3 or 4 or 5 day training course. Nowadays, increasingly, training and development is done either through online training or through coaching, mentorship, those sorts of activities. Traditional in person training has become much less attractive because online delivery offers cost savings and also traditional in-person training tended to teach somebody something which they forgot very quickly. It wasn’t sustainable. I remember when I ran a company that did training in testing. We very often found that people, if they didn’t have some refresher, very, very quickly forgot everything they had learnt in that training. There’s also been an understanding of a soft skills importance, which is really what coaching deals with. It looks at the soft skills people can use to improve their quality of life in their work. And the rise of the coaching style of leadership of those sorts of new models of leadership has helped just to see coaching as something really important. And I, in the 90s in particular, noticed the extent to which whereas coaching at one stage had just been for the very, very senior people in companies, increasingly it was being used further down the food chain in companies and in some cases upward coaching, coaching by people of their managers, was becoming quite popular. Increasingly for good or bad, older, retired, workers very often thought it would be quite nice later on, after they retired, to retrain as a coach, to give something back into society and into work. That has also increased the number of Coaches, though not necessarily the quality of the Coaching. The final point I want to make, and I’ve been reading a book just recently about this, is that listening to somebody without really doing very much else. Actually, helps them. We can tell that actually active listening will change somebody’s mood, will change somebody’s outlook on life. And I interview a lot of psychologists for the psychologist magazine, and I’ve heard that said by clinical psychologists as well as coaches that in a sense, it doesn’t matter what techniques you use. What matters is the quality of the listening, the trust and the quality of the relationship as to whether what happens in a session, whether a clinical session, therapeutic or a coaching session very much depends on the quality of the relationship. And this means that coaching can be incredibly effective on the basis of meetings in which there is at least a meeting of minds. And anybody who’s coached will have examples of that. So, coaching has become much more important in the food chain of helping people have better lives and a better experience at the world. Where are we now with psychometrics in coaching? Well, some coaches still dislike, the testing, measurement, judgment, categorization approach. The extent to which some tests are used to say, well, you can have this job, but you can’t, or your this sort of person. That goes against very often how coaches are taught. Where coaches do use tests, they tend to focus on personality, and particularly type measures. Many of you who are coaches will know the Myers-Briggs type indicator, and it’s my view that, quite often, that’s the only test that a lot of coaches know. And there is a reason for that. Is that a test that coaches use, the Myers- Briggs type indicator, Firo and emotional Intelligence tests, come from the very humanistic disciplines that coaching itself came from. There’s an increased interest in strengths and emotional intelligence because that seems far more important to people’s experience in the world. Coaching has been professionalized, although there are lots of people who are doing it almost as a hobby. There is much more interest in almost accredited coaching. And just to give one example, this year the British Psychological Society decided that they would make coaching psychology a division, which puts it on the same level as clinical psychology, occupational psychology and education psychology. Whereas once upon a time tests tended to be used for one thing or had one report that covered all its uses. Nowadays, you increasingly find that tests do produce different reports for different purposes, and you will find a large number of tests nowadays that can produce reports which are specifically for use by coaches. In certain areas, and particularly since the 1970s. Whereas in those days, testing was very much owned by psychology and by psychologists. Increasingly nowadays, largely due to the work in developing competencies for test use, you find that many more people can both use and develop tests for their particular purposes. And as I say most tests drive multiple reports. Lowering cost and training. All the bongs going on. Remind me a little bit of Gamelan music. But there we go. So, to cut to the chase, why should you use psychometrics in coaching given this history? I think the most important thing is that test provides a third, objective, voice to the conversation, which is the basis of coaching. Many of you will have experienced the idea that sometimes you hit a dead end in a coaching conversation and then a third voice can come in and say, well, let’s have a look at this. And testing is one of the ways in which you can get that third objective voice into the conversation. It’s not the only way, another way of course is doing a 360 degree or scanning around an individual’s managers, their significant others, their reports depending on what sort of coaching your doing. Their parents, their relations. And getting other voices into the conversation. But one of the things that a good test does, with a good report, which we’ll come to. Can contribute to coaching, and has contributed to my coaching experience, is that I can use it, to help, further a conversation. Second point is that, and this was said to me by a very experienced coach, who works for a testing company. And knows quite a lot about testing. Was that, as far as he was concerned, he uses testing in coaching. As it gives a vocabulary to discuss emotion and problems in environments where sometimes that’s difficult to do. And it’s true that it also helps in some cultures where it’s difficult to do. If you go into many companies, it’s quite difficult to raise problem issues of emotions, soft skills or genuine problems because it’s seen by some people this weakness. Equally, it’s very difficult to talk about it because people quite often use different language. One of the things a psychometric test does is offer a language to discuss those issues. But it also gives you is return on investment metrics. This is a more important thing for people who ask you to do coaching within a company. Because psychometrics tends to use numbers. It’s much, much, much easier for you to. Assess the situation. Coach. And then assess the situation again. And see if you’ve actually made any difference. And actually, most recently for me, I was coaching a Romanian managing director of a car company who had come up through banking and was very numbers oriented. She found assessments really, really useful because A) she liked the numbers. And B) I assessed her on certain issues using a test that I developed myself. Before we started, which she quite liked. We then coached, conversed, talked to each other, and then at the end of our session, I assessed her again. And we found that there were significant differences in the scores, which meant, however it had come about, that change had happened. And it was changed for the better. And, in fact, in the next few days, I’m going to do the same thing with the head of another car company in the u.k., where we’re going to actually say, at the end of a contracted set of coaching sessions, we can actually have a look at something and say, well, have we made any difference? How you feel about it? Somebody‚Äôs asked me, considering your example, what tool did you use? Well in fact, in the first one I actually used one that I developed myself, which is not generally available. It was such a specific set of discussions that I developed something myself. In the book I’ve pointed out, that actually, you can use cognitive tests sometimes in Coaching. I‚Äôve used them with marketing directors to see how good they were with numbers and to see if their ability to utilize numbers has changed. In a couple of cases, I‚Äôve used an emotional intelligence test. And again, if you want, just let us know and I’ll send you some examples to look at somebody who had some problems with social anxiety, and particularly in understanding what others were getting at when they’re talking to them. And there we saw some very good results. But the other thing I occasionally do is ask somebody to ask their colleagues, whether they‚Äôve noticed a difference. And I think one of the most successful coaching sessions I had with somebody, somebody volunteered in a board meeting. Good heavens, what’s happened to you? You’ve changed. And it was a change in the direction, what we were looking for. But I have to say that not everything succeeds. I’m not saying everything does. But in those particular examples, I’ve used a test. I produced myself an emotional intelligence test or formal or informal through 360. Testing can also establish credibility of coaches. It’s an area of knowledge you can know about. We have to be slightly careful about that because there can be testing can be used by some people. And I’ve seen it happen to overcome imposter syndrome. Coaching is a very content less in some ways area. If you use a bag of tricks from all sorts of different areas in order to discuss things with people, and I know a number of coaches and a number of people have written that coaches do feel imposter syndrome quite often. Using tests to establish credibility is OK. If the Coachee wants that. But do be careful about it. I advise any coaches that are going to use a test to do it themselves first. And get feedback from it. because it helps them understand their relationship with other people. And I think that’s almost the first practical thing I’d say, which is that if you’re going to use a test, do it yourself first. Firstly, it will tell you what it feels like for the Coachee to do it. And secondly it will tell you an awful lot about your own way of offering it. Just gather a lot of information in a relatively short time. And a final point, and this again was said to me by a very experienced coach of psychometric used in coaching is only as good as the conversation based on it. That returns me to the first two points. It’s a third objective point and it provides you with a cover to discuss emotion. People use psychometrics at different times in coaching sessions, and it very much depends on your antena as a coach. I tend to use them in the following times. At the beginning – as a base. Sometimes it’s a way of getting to know each other. Years and years ago, too many years to mention that you can tell that I’m rather old. I did some research, or I sponsored some research on people’s attitudes towards testing. The general received opinions that people don’t like being tested. We found it exactly the opposite. They don’t like doing cognitive tests where there are right and wrong answers, but they do love doing personality tests because it tells them about themselves. So sometimes as you’re discussing the coaching sessions, as you’re going through what I call your chemistry, your initial getting to know you session, you get the sense that somebody really react well to using a test report as the basis of the discussion. Sometimes people ask to do it. ‚ÄúI did a test 10 years ago. And it really helped me. Could we do something like that? The other thing I do is that sometimes, as I say, it overcomes blocks and difficulties in the conversation. If you really haven’t got the right language together, if you really are not getting further on suggesting the use of a test which you can then share and talk about together sometimes starts off the conversation again. It’s not the only thing you can use. You can use almost anything to overcome those blocks. I even got one of my coaching subjects to write a poem once because one of my interests is poetry. And it was a complete breakthrough. But at other times, using a test can overcome those difficulties. How do you use psychometrics? You should never impose it. You should never say, well, let’s do a test. And that was the mistake I made when I started being a coach, because I knew I knew about psychometrics. I used to start off always with a psychometric even if the person didn‚Äôt want to. And I found other people, other colleagues, who done the same thing. So should never impose that. You should discuss it in a chemistry session. In your initial getting to know you session. How should you do? What should you do? How was it done? Did you enjoy it? Did it help you? Although quite often in psychometrics you‚Äôre taught not to share the reports with the person who’s filled in the test. I always share the reports with the person who’s taking the test. I send it to them and ask them to mark it with what they agree, and what they disagree with. So, I say if you agree with statement put 2 ticks by it, but if you disagree with the statement put 2 crosses by it and that usually results in a superb discussion. Why do you disagree with that? Can you give me examples of why that was good? Can you put that in context? And of course, you explain beforehand what the assessment is, what it’s about, and why you’re doing it. But I can’t see the point in coaching or using an assessment without equalizing the power and sharing the results. Always bear in mind the responses of the coaching to a test or anybody to a test are their views. And you can challenge. Do you really mean that? Give me an example of what you mean when you said that about yourself. Why did you say that about yourself? The point of assessment in coaching is to, just to reiterate, is to contribute to the conversation. And I say a 3 or 4 way conversation because if you’ve used a 360, you might have many voices in the conversation. What parts of psychometric tests are important in connection? Frankly, the most important thing in coaching is to report. The results. But particularly the report. And that’s why A) you should always do a test yourself. And B) you should always think about the sorts of people you coach and think about, is the language the right language? Do the examples or language given fit the age of the sort of person I talk to. Is the information given heavily verbal or are there good numbers and words – good numbers and diagrams you might say. Younger people tend to react better to numbers and diagrams than to words. Older people to words. It’s a generalisation but you need to take that on board. The report should be personal. You’re going to share it with them. They should never be treated in it as a subject. The questions in a test should seem relevant to the person who fills it in. What’s known as face validity. In other words, you don’t assess a finance director with a load of ink blots because they will almost certainly say, why are you giving me things? Somebody asked me if I could recommend any eye test relevance coaching. Yes, I can. John, if you leave it for a while, I’ll come back to that in a second. And then we’ll talk about that. The report from a test that you use in coaching should always suggest what to do next. It should never just describe. Coaching is future oriented, not past oriented, and it’s about action. So, I’ve spent quite a lot of my time in my present role writing reports for testing companies, and a lot of that time was spent saying, if this is your results, this is what you need to do about it. You should look at the numbers in a psychometric test, the reliability, the validity. Does it measure what it says it measures? Does it measure it accurately on all occasions? There‚Äôs a reassurance of accuracy, but you don’t need to be quite as obsessive about that as, say, somebody who is using tests for recruitment. And as I say, we’re in a predominately visual culture nowadays and therefore the infographics are really important. I’m going to go slightly over my time talking, but I will come back to questions quickly. You can find out more information about tests and all sorts of places. So, for instance, the European Federation of Psychological Association for assessments, you can have these slides, they give you links, is a good place to find out things. I run the European test publishers’ group. The association of test publishers has branches in the USA, India, Asia and Europe as well. So those places will give you information about it. The Bureau’s Institute publishes an annual review of test. I never have used it. It’s a bit too heavy for me and it’s monstrously expensive. But I know you can find it in most libraries. Good Test publishers’ websites are mines of information. And I’ll give you an example. The Myers-Briggs type indicator, which is the most popular test used in coaching, is the website there is full of useful information. It’s not a test I particularly use, interestingly enough, but I take my hat off to that test publisher because they do. They provide a lot of free information to users. And some national Psychological Association associations like the British Psychological Society do have specialist areas which provide information about assessment. Which sorts of tests should a coach have? Well, I always say you should have two personality tests. One type and one trait. And some people would even say that they should have a third one, which is called an IPSO Tip test. And if you want an explanation about that I shall attempt to give you one in the questions section, you should have a strengths indicator, that’s very popular in coaching. And the Gallup strengths measure, which is a book, but which you can use as a test, is particularly good. There are reasonably good values and motivation tests around. And again, a number of these are recommended in my book. And if you really want me to recommend individual ones, I‚Äôll write a list for you and send it out. And an emotional intelligence one. I personally prefer tests needing training. Yes, I do recommend VIA Institute testing the values. Yes, I do. And in fact, I recommend the book. I think that’s very useful. I didn’t know very much about it before I wrote that. The more I discovered about it, the more interested I became in it. I tend to use DISC systems only when the coachee asks for them. Or will not react well to more complex measures. And again, we can talk about different systems if you want, but in a sense, they are the most popular, simplest personality measures available. Well, they‚Äôre largely personality measures, but I have some problems with them technically. But if you have two personality tests, or strength measure, and emotional intelligence measure, you’ve got a nice tool kit. And sometimes one test will function for all of those purposes. Yes right. Rachel, I love the message and learning here to not simply use the same just for the sake of it but know why you’re using a test and the contract for that with them. So that is incredibly important. You have to know why. OK, let me move on and we’ll come up. There are lots of other things you can measure. I didn’t mention that i’ve recently been coming up with a number of people who are extremely stressed. There are some very good stress measures around. And there’s also the people who published, a very good conflict measure. And that’s something which increasingly and that’s very simple to use. It’s not complicated at all, very easy to get hold of. And increasingly, I found it rather useful, particularly in business contexts. Let me mention Facet5. Since I’ve used Facet5. I’ve known Facet5 for some time and I recommend Facet5. And I’ll tell you why, but I’m not here to advertise. They don’t pay me, and I’m not on the staff. Why do I like Facet5? It’s got a great report which I can share with anybody. It combines a factor and a quasi-type approach. So, you can explain the results in a number of different ways to people, which really helps with people who have different preferences. It has a superb treatment of emotionality. This is often known in psychometrics as neuroticism and some people run away from it. But in fact, neuroticism might, I used to train advertising students at one stage and their scores on neuroticism went off the charts. And yet some of them were monstrously successful. I score on the 95th percentile on neuroticism or whatever it is. I can’t remember now. It’s a bit embarrassing. Facet 5 has the best treatment of that very important factor in people’s personality. That I know. And there’s a good mix of text and graphics. It also, in a sense, is that Facet5 of which is the intel inside, a number of components that can be used for different things. So there’s a plug for Facet5 five, seeing how they put me on. But I want to just stress again, I’m not here to advertise it. There are other tests. I’ll leave this up there. This is when I was writing the book. I found thousands of. Definitions of tests, none of which. Which are directly relevant to. Coaching so I wrote my own definition. ‚ÄúA psychological evaluation appropriately used in coaching will lend to be value free: It will make no judgments. It will externalize what is internal to a person and describe it in a way, a structure and a language which is inclusive and contributes a further voice to discussion and thought. It may be formal or informal; based on theory, empirical research or specific expertise and experience. It must be used with a purpose, which reflects its characteristics and with an understanding of what it is measuring and how much its scores and descriptions can be depended on. In a sense, that’s a summary of what we’ve been talking about. In the future. You will see an increased influence of technology on testing. And we can already make good analysis of people’s personalities through their Facebook pages. We can use artificial intelligence and analyse predicting behaviour. I know a number of people who are developing not printed reports, but reports which are videod. So if you want to understand what extroversion is, you look at a video. We‚Äôre increasingly seeing people linking physical and psychological aspects of the human experience. So people wear things and those things feedback what’s going on physically to a person. And infer from its psychological state. And a number of things that people are using in their homes, like music systems, are set up so that they can actually do that sort of thing. They will also stream positive tips into people’s houses and offices if they think somebody is under stress. And there’s going to be an increased influence of neuropsychological studies, particularly some groundbreaking stuff that’s in the last 10 years is overthrowing our view about the structure of the brain and why certain things happen with it. So, you can see developments developing, but these will not change the basic principles. Coaching is about conversations. It’s about doing things for a purpose. And not using the same tests over and over again. So, there is a growing relationship between testing and coaching. And in my practice as a coach, which is increasingly what I do most of the time, I would say that I use assessments. Maybe 70% with 70% of my clients. That’s because testing and assessment is moving closer to coaching. Because coaching is becoming an incredibly successful part of our armoury. So two people have questions. If so, maybe they could write something on the chat. Then I’ll ask them to unmute and show themselves. Or has nobody got any questions. Ian, I’ve got a question. OK can you explain why MBTI is so criticised? Yes, I should have drawn something for this. But let me draw something and hold it to the camera. Assume human characteristics form that shape the normal curve of distribution. So let’s say we put height down on the bottom axis and the number of people at different heights up on the top. On the vertical axis, you’ll have very, very few people with a very low height, and then gradually you’ll get more and more people with median height and then you’ll get very, very few people who are extraordinarily tall, gigantic. And almost all characteristics in the world follow that structure. I mean, you’re always supposed to see your screen, all your video, because you don’t see it. No, it’s still on share screen. OK don’t worry. Don’t worry. I’ll just talk it through. Basically, all psychological human characteristics and a lot of other things form what’s known as the normal curve of distribution. And if you don’t know that, which I’m sure most of you do, if you just put normal culture of distribution into Google you’ll see an example of it. The results from MBTI do not follow that. They follow a different shape, and it is still completely bemusing about why that is. That’s the first thing. It doesn’t follow the rules of most natural phenomena. Secondly a lot of people think that the MBTI divides us up into, I think it was at 16 types. It doesn’t actually. And they’re criticised for being simplistic, it doesn’t actually. It’s much better than that. But it suggests all sorts of types we can own. Thirdly, if you are a type and those of you who’ve done MBTI will know what I mean by that. You have four letters. I’m an INFP. We don’t really know where you sit within the INF. We don’t know whether you’re right on the edge or somewhere over here or. It doesn’t seem to be as precise as, say, a factor test. And finally, there is a real snobbery and a gender snobbery about the fact that the people who developed Jungs work were women. And they weren’t professional psychologists. Sexism and there’s a real snobbery about that, which I’ve got absolutely no time for what so ever. There’s a real snobbery about Jung as well. If you read Jung’s original book, psychological types, it’s a marvelous book. It’s not an easy book, but it’s a subtle analysis of the human condition and human psychology. And a lot of psychologists don’t like it very much. So, MBTI is criticised for those reasons and a number of others as well. But it’s. Jenny Rogers, who’s is one of my idols as a coach, uses it all the time and has written a very, very good book about it. From her point of view, whatever technically is untrue about it in coaching – it works. One thing I’d say MBTI you can’t use it for making decisions about people. You can use it in development but not in recruitment. It just doesn’t work and never should work. Give them their due, the publisher says that. I’ve just had a 5-minute Warning. Is that everything, chaps? I was going to recommend an emotional intelligence test. And I’m trying to think what I recommended in the book because I don’t want to contradict myself. Well, yes, I do remember this. This is going to sound odd. There’s a company called Thomas that a lot of people criticize. They’ve got an extra personality, a simple measure. They have a thing called a trait emotional intelligence test, which is very, very good indeed. It’s much, much better than their other products. And I like it immensely. And when I have used different emotion tests that’s the one, I like best. I’ve never used the Enneagram. I’ll be honest with you. And if you know very much about it, I’d be quite interested in it because I know I’m quite interested in the experience of monks and religious people that they use Enneagram alot. So, if you’ve got Rachael, if you’ve got some ideas on Enneagram that’s something I wouldn’t mind talking to you about. No. If you put Thomas assessment or Thomas International into Google, you will find them. That’s a very good test and it was developed by a very, very good author as well Demos is Greek who was working as a PhD student for a very good professor at the time, I did know quite a bit about it. And it’s a very interesting. In the book I recommend a couple but if you just had one I’d use that one. I don’t know the GRCI tools. I was talking to someone the other day and he reckoned there were 50,000 tests in the world. Well, I don’t know if that’s true, but it sometimes seems like that. So I don’t know. I know a couple of others. There’s one that was produced at Henley Management College, which actually I don’t know if Harry still here, but Harry Harry puckering, who’s probably not and which I partly published as well. Don’t know who publishes it now, but I kind of find out. But that’s quite interesting. That’s a very businesslike tool. Talking of your book, Ian? Yes. Here’s one I made earlier. This is the ‚using psychometrics in coaching: a practical guide, written by influence. And the editor is Jenny Rogers as Ian has been talking. Facet5 are actually going to purchase some of these and some of the lucky people that are on this chat today will be provided with one of these. They’ll all go into a hat and we’re going to pick some out, providing you comment on social media and let us know what you think of today’s session. So, some of these will be available. As I say, they’ll go into a little hat, your names will go into hat, and we’ll pick a few out and you’ll be the lucky recipient of one of these. So, I just thought to publicise that for you Ian. Thank you very much indeed. I think is that everything? I think. Thank you ever so much for listening. I hope that has been useful. My basic message is that basically if you’re a coach or if you’re involved in testing, you’re trying to help people live better lives either in working or in their ordinary life. And if you put those two things together, testing and coaching, it can enhance and I know this from experience, it can help people overcome problematic difficulties they increasingly have in rather stressful world. So, but it does require us not just to use the same thing over and over again, but to think about it. No, that’s great. And if anybody, if there’s any questions that we haven’t answered or you’ve got any more questions, by all means, send them in. I will do an FAQs and we’ll send it out to everybody as well. So thank you very much, everyone. Thank you for attending. Much appreciated and I hope you have a lovely evening, day, morning wherever you are in the world. So, thank you very much. And we will end this session now. Thank you. Thank you.