Michael Koehler: Welcome to episode nine of On the Balcony. My name is Michael Koehler, and I'm your host. Today is the second of two episodes that engage with a theme of, ‘Leadership Without Authority.’ We continue to explore how activists, whistleblowers, and organizers might be particularly well positioned to practice leadership.
The foundation for our discussion is Chapter Nine of Ron Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers, with the title, "Modulating the Provocation." In this chapter, we circle back to a case example Heifetz explored early in his book when he analyzed Lyndon B. Johnson's leadership moves around the Civil Rights Movement.
Now, we're changing the perspective and learn from several of the activists engaged in the Civil Rights Movement with multiple interventions that culminate in a scene on Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, in March of 1965. It is the bridge that peaceful-voting right protestors crossed on their march from Selma to Montgomery when they were brutally attacked by police, an incident that became known as Bloody Sunday. And that was televised around America and the world.
It ultimately contributed to an increase in the support of the Voting Rights movement. In this chapter, Heifetz explores a couple of strategies and traps of operating beyond one's authority, such as analyzing and modulating heat, reading authority figures as a barometer, avoiding becoming a lightning rod, and managing risk.
Our guest today helps us draw out powerful lessons and connect them to today's challenges around systemic racism, especially in the education system. Ashley Stewart works as an Executive Coach, a Transformation Leadership Facilitator, and Racial Consciousness Consultant. He also served as Executive Director for Talented Organizational Development at Baltimore City Public Schools.
As always, I invite you to take a look at the chapter. That is, Chapter Nine in Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers. Let's dive right in.
Welcome, Ashley.
Ashley, I'm so excited to have you here on the show today, as we're talking about chapter nine of Leadership Without Easy Answers, with the title, ‘Modulating the Provocation’. And, I would like us to kick off by just highlighting a few of the core ideas from the chapter. So, I'm curious to hear, like what ideas stood out to you as you were re-engaging with this chapter?
Ashley Stewart: I think one of the core themes that I started to just really spin and spin on is that everyone can lead, because everyone has informal authority. And this chapter in particular was about leading with informal authority, and some of the dangers and consequences of doing so, but then also some of the rewards that happened. That was one of the things that I think most deeply resonated with me. And it was a great reminder as I work with leaders and in my own leadership.
Michael Koehler: Yeah. I mean, it's one of the beautiful ideas that Heifetz introduces. That you don't need to be in power, in authority to lead. And some of the most inspiring leadership actually is always beyond what you're authorized to do. Even if you have the authority, it often goes beyond what people are expecting. And a little bit earlier in the book, and a little bit earlier in the season, we were looking at Lyndon B. Johnson's leadership from a role of authority, and the case study was told from his perspective, about his moves that he made as this-- there's actually two chapters on Lyndon B. Johnson; one is where he kind of practices leadership around the Civil Rights Movement, and then how he really fails around Vietnam. But it was so fascinating to kind of read the other side, the leadership that happened, the strategies that were possible and that were necessary to come from the community that roles of authority don't have access to.
Ashley Stewart: Yeah. I think it's interesting how Heifetz double clicks on community and really gives you a window into some of the beautiful cacophony of what happens on the ground when people start to claim their own authority, and start to realize that there's power in that reclamation. And that they have a contribution to make as well, without sometimes understanding the bigger picture. Not seeing what's happening on the state, or the county for that matter of stage, or the federal stage. So I really appreciated the pulling back the curtain, if you will, about how particular leaders in this chapter really led from their seats. Led from their particular platforms, which just - clearly they weren't as big as President Johnson's - but got to a place where they were fed up and didn't have all the answers, that's for sure. And didn't know if their actions were going to lead to the responses and results they wanted, but they did it, anyway. That was powerful to me.
Michael Koehler: Was there any of the characters that stood out to you? Or like, that one was particularly interesting?
Ashley Stewart: You know, there's a student that Heifetz mentions a couple of times throughout this chapter, I think his name's Lafayette. And Lafayette is really a student organizer. And what I like about-- I'm going to say this character, but he is real, he was a real person, obviously - but what I was drawn to about the telling of Lafayette’s story in this chapter is, here is the person; a young person, who really in our society have the least power, in terms of economics, in terms of society, in terms of political power, but also was then detached from that power. And so that actually gave him power. That is to say that Lafayette and the other students working in the movement weren’t tied to the economic pressures, weren’t tied to the political pressures of having to be quiet as a black person, because we don't want to upset the white people. We don't want to upset their way of living. They hadn't been through that struggle, they didn't have mortgages, those kinds of things. And so, that absence of that connection, that absence of that access to power, was actually powerful. Because Lafayette wasn't bound by worrying about if he was going to disrupt relationships, worrying about if he was going to disrupt or interrupt his way of life. Because it hadn't been anchored in and tethered in some of the internal, and very external ways of oppression that a middle-income, as a black person, lifestyle created for him or other people.
Michael Koehler: Yeah. The systemic forces around youth movements, right? As you say, being less attached, being a little bit less in these loyalty binds of role is so interesting.
Ashley Stewart: Loyalty bind. Yeah. I like that turn of phrase, and I think that's exactly what it is. When people don't have particular authority, they aren't stuck in having to please, and having to hold space and container for people that are going to have them to keep their job. And so, in some ways, their candor, their movements, are a bit more untethered and might feel or seem radical. At the same token, Heifetz also talks about how Bernard Lafayette's kind of leadership with informal authority also lacks perspective. Like, he also can't see the other layers and other parts of the ecosystem working; one, for, just not having access to it, and two, because it has never had to operate at a particular level or from a different platform. So this struck me, and made me think, "I wonder what Bernard felt loyal to." I think Lafayette probably felt loyal to the liberation of people of color. The liberation of black people, and their right to vote, their right to get in the arena.
Michael Koehler: Ashley, I can't wait to dive in more deeply and draw connections to today's world a little bit more explicitly, also around the leadership work you've been doing. Before we do that, we just want to get to know you a little bit better. And one of the practices we've been having here is inviting our guests to share their roles, and their role identities as sources of inspiration, as wisdom, as maybe also certain lenses they bring to this work. So it's a long way of saying, “Ashley, who are you?"
Ashley Stewart: Yeah, who am I? So I've heard your other podcasts and I've thought about like what I might say, sitting in this seat. And I find myself pulling back on the thing that I've thought from the very beginning, which is, I'm black. And I pull on that part of my identity first, because it is the part of my identity that I think has had the most harm done to it. It is the part of my identity that needs the most repair. And so sometimes my friends will ask me, or colleagues or whomever will say, "Ashley, how are you doing today?" I'm like, “I'm great, I'm black and amazing." Or," I'm black and tired." That's my own affirmation to me that black is worthy, because I've lived in a society where I get a steady diet that, 'black is less than', and that people of color are not worthy of, or in some cases, not even whole humans. And so I have my own journey to walk around my internalized subordination and internalized oppression. And that's a way of me reminding myself; there's power in what we speak.
And so at every opportunity, I try to tell myself that black is amazing and it's beautiful. Period. So I'm black, and people can't see me today, but I'm black, that's part of my identity. And then, I carry multiple roles in my life. I'm a brother, I'm a son, I'm a husband, I'm a father. I think at the core, I'm a coach, hat coaching is what I do, but it's also who I be, who I am. And I'm extremely, almost embarrassingly blessed to be able to do that work through my vocation. I'm able to work around transformation, and facilitation, and coaching, and leadership, at the intersection of racial consciousness and identity narratives. It's not so much about how I spend my time in the day, it's really about me being able to show up authentically and offer what I think are my gifts to the world, and the people with whom I operate, and live, and breathe, and worship, play, and fight, and be in conflict, and all the things that humans do.
So at the core of it, what I like to think of myself as, is a self-expert. I've loved Heifetz's work ever since I was at the Kennedy School, and was introduced to it. And I can pull things off the shelf, his books, and dust them off, and help people understand some of the concepts. But until I've had my own experience with the text, and understand the nuance, and understand my connection to it, that's when I can actually hold the space for myself first, and then I can have the capacity to hold it for other people in my leadership work.
Michael Koehler: Thank you.
Ashley Stewart: Yeah. Thanks for the opportunity to share that.
Michael Koehler: So let's take a look at the text together. I'm really curious to hear what piece of the text stood out to you for us to examine together today.
Ashley Stewart: Well, I will just say that I very much appreciate the backdrop of Alabama, and the backdrop of Selma, in particular. I read this text many years ago, and the thing that stuck out to me-- the reason it was so poignant for me to read it now is because my wife is writing a book on Vivian Malone Jones, who was the first person to integrate the University of Alabama, which is referenced in the chapter. And we spent last summer, my wife, my two children, touring Alabama in that research. So, getting a chance to see some of the places referenced here was just beautiful. And one of the quotes that I really anchor in from the chapter, it's on page 221, and I'll read the sentence, and then I'll share the sentence before it, for context.
But the sentence that stuck with me is this. "It almost meant that people might die." That, really for me, spoke to the gravity of the kind of work that I've done in the space of vulnerable children and families for the arc of my career. No, I didn't work in ambulatory services, ER, shock/trauma, where people literally are dying. Nor have I worked on the front lines of the folks who are referenced in this text: Dr. King, Ralph Abernathy, et cetera, where literally, they laid down their lives for civil rights, and liberation of the black folks. But I do think about the death that we can suffer, in terms of our own bondage and hostage, being hostage in today America, in 2022.
So that sentence stuck out. The context is, “They decided to push Selma past the breaking point, and that meant that the nation and the federal government would have to provide the holding environment. It also meant that people might die.” When I read that, you heard me read that twice now, what came up for you?
Michael Koehler: Anxiety. Like fear. As I'm hearing that text, I'm getting in touch with the dangers that leadership embodies. Thank you for asking. I would love to read the text to you, but before we do that, I just want to take one more moment to anchor us where we are in the chapter. You read the paragraph before that, but let's just sort of orient ourselves a little bit. Where are we in the story here? Like, who is being referred to? You know, where are we in the larger context?
Ashley Stewart: In the context of this particular passage or part of the text, I think where we are is, you’re looking at 1965, right? Civil rights activists are really operating at two levels; they're operating at the level of what's happening on the ground and community, they're operating at the level of what's happening with the president in Congress, and are they going to get a voting rights act pass? Are we going to get the right for it in legislation? And they're trying to turn up the heat enough at the local level, where it gets the attention of people, that it's caught in the national media. I think that's sort of beautiful about the tension of the federal government needing to create this holding environment, while also recognizing there's risk that people might die. Is that– to your point, it's dangerous. It's real, you're accounting for an engaging people's lives.
And, I think what the civil rights activists were trying to do, or trying to act on, was understanding that you can't disrupt what you can't see. And so, it's like, how do we get people to see it? And how do we, not orchestrate, but create an environment where we know that if we cross over this line from city to county in this march, we're going to incite the sheriff, and he, and his men and women in armed forces to attack, or to act in ways that actually shed light on how ugly we can be as human beings. And if we don't, then it will allow the things under the surface to be blinded, to stay dormant. And so, it's trying to figure out, like, how do we do this? How do we engage both national, federal, mobilize into action, while thinking about the very real risk, human toll, that could be lost.
Michael Koehler: And the way how I understand, it is like that's the essence of this chapter. The provocation, the raising of the heat is not a means, and it's a mean to an end. And the end is the adaptive work that lies in confronting a harsh reality that is already there in this system, but is being avoided. And it's focusing people's attention and agency, and pointing them to their responsibility in that mess is a core leadership task. And so, what came to my mind as I was listening to you is like the cameras. There's the role, the medias play in like, okay-- as we're literally shedding the light on this challenge, like cameras are there to capture it.
Dean Williams, has in his book, Real Leadership, talks about different kinds of adaptive challenges, and one of them is the activist challenge. And, and one of the core strategies he always mentions is, "Make sure the cameras are rolling." There's no point in a provocation of this kind and the risk that it entails, if nobody is watching.
Ashley, as we're slowly making our bridge to your world, I want to read the quote to you again, I'm going to invite you to, for the moment, just like, let the words wash over you and see what images and associations come up. And we're at the moment, looking kind of for intuitions, songs, emotions. Like, we're not looking for concrete case examples yet. We're just looking for sort of imagery, allegories, loose associations. So, here comes the quote: "They decided to push Selma past the breaking point, and that meant that the nation and the federal government would have to provide the holding environment. It also meant that people might die.”
Ashley Stewart: What comes to me when I hear you read that text is, the risk. The risk of not knowing what happens beyond the boundary, beyond the breaking point. It also conjures up in my mind, sort of this imagery of shed; shedding of water, water-shed moments, blood shed, the spattering of blood from hard work and sacrifice, shedding of tears, birthing. All of this is breaking and renting things and starting anew. And while we do this as humans, we break things, we tear things, there's not always a guarantee that there's going to be the ability to put it back. And certainly, when we put it back, it might not be like it was before. And that might be a good thing. The breaking of something; the breaking of Selma in this case, could indicate that what they're trying to build is something different. And so, sometimes I think of breaking as well, you know, I've got two kids, and so kids keep breaking things all the time in the house, by the way. But, often when they break things in the house, by accident-- very rarely, is it done in purpose or on purpose? But I try to put things back together, and piece it to fit how it was, how it should be, how I remembered it. But sometimes we break things so that it cannot go back to its original state.
And so, that for me, evokes transformation instead of change. With change, we can sort of go back to the place we were, transformation feels like a shift in root perspective. So the breaking can be cleansing-
Michael Koehler: A breakthrough.
Ashley Stewart: -yeah. And in some of the work that I lead, I see that in moments when I've had to lead with informal authority, and very little positional power, I remember to conjure up-- to pull forward the word you talked about, the fear of not knowing what would happen if I broke something. And the thing I'm holding back from saying is, what I saw from the text is, the activists, and the dental hygienist, and the student, and the organizers, and the preachers, and the everyday folk were breaking because it was already broken. There was this semblance, that society was good because now we were no longer enslaved people. And we had our fountain in our restaurants, and white people had their fountains in restaurants, and it worked. But for a good number of people, it didn't work. It was still broken. And so the breaking, the pushing beyond that boundary, for some, felt very risky because, "I'm comfortable. I like what it currently is. It could be worse." And then there are others who hold, "But it should be so much better. And we'll never know, if we don't push it beyond this boundary.” A lot of risk.
Michael Koehler: Yeah. I'm so curious to examine, to explore how those themes show up, and have shown up in your work. You know, we look at this 60-year-old example and yet so much is still broken. And the education space, the space in which you've been for a long time, I think it's a space in which it is particularly visible. So, I'd love to invite us to enter that space a little bit, and I'm curious to hear what experience from your own world-- where you are either practicing leadership, or enable leadership from your role of coach, facilitator, is coming up as we engage with this quote: "They decided to push Selma past the breaking point. And that meant that the nation and the federal government would have to provide the holding environment. It also meant that people might die."
Ashley Stewart: I started my career as a teacher. I taught High School, 10th grade Geometry and Chemistry, in an alternative school in Atlanta, Georgia, for young people who were no longer welcome in Atlanta public schools. And found myself from the very beginning of that experience, really angered, and almost obsessed with how the adults were behaving. Not so much the young people. I grew very curious about the way in which the headmaster made decisions, or the way in which the board responded to particular outbursts or incidents at the school. And so it made me really curious about how adults make decisions for young people. And from then on, I went and did a beautifully winding career, all thinking about how adults make decisions. And I started out as a teacher-- my last role, I worked at a large urban public school district running their learning and development function. And the way that I come to it is through a lens of development, a lens of human transformation, of change, of group dynamics and relations, of leadership development.
And, that quote, in thinking about my connection to young people and how adults have so much power and influence over how young people live, lead, and thrive, or not. And so I worked in a huge system with so many leaders who would say, "But I'm not the CEO, I'm not the superintendent. I don't have any power. I'm not the principal, I don't have any power. I'm just the person who does the numbers, I'm just the janitor. I'm just the whomever." And I was taken with, even the work of this book, Leading Without Authority, and I take it literally and seriously that everybody in a big, hairy system like that, has a role to play. Everyone can lead from their seat. Everyone doesn't have positional power, but the only way to do it, I think, is to recognize the tension of that quote, is to recognize that people might die, that children might not have access to the education and the exploration that they need, and so deserve, to live out their full potential.
But everyone has a responsibility; whether you're sweeping the floor as a janitor, or you're working on the CEO's cabinet. And everyone in between has a responsibility to live the way that Ralph Abernathy lived, or live the way that Lafayette lived, and lead. It's not an easy thing to do, because it makes you a target. It makes you-- Heifetz calls it a lightning rod. It makes you very susceptible, it makes you very hyper-visible to attack. And so, to the people who think, "Maybe I might die. I get marginalized, or I might lose my job for speaking out." And so, there's this tension of who the people who might die are, for me. And I think about K-12 education, I'm not asking people to be martyrs in the system, but I am asking people to hold, or I was asking people to hold this notion that ‘These are my babies, these are my kids.’ And whether I'm crunching the numbers at the district office, or I'm cutting the grass, I'm going to do so in a way that serves young people, and do so in a way that their very being depends on it. Which means that I'm making decisions very differently, which means that I might do things that I feel are risky, which means I might speak out against authority or the powers that be, or mobilize in a particular way. It's a very, very hard thing to do.
Michael Koehler: Would you share an example with us? Either from what you did, or what you saw somebody in the system do of taking that risk, of stepping over the boundary, of mobilizing, that maybe generated some progress or maybe not.
Ashley Stewart: Yeah. So I'll share a story that's quite personal to me. I led this glorious, wonderful team of folks, and I had the opportunity to supervise someone who felt so strongly that the ways in which we were rolling out development was harmful to adults. And this person made every attempt in their best effort to disrupt and interrupt the work we were pushing as a team, because they felt very strongly, deeply held in their beliefs that, our focus on race, our focus on equity, our focus on isolating race, and examining the role and presence of whiteness in our work, was just not the way to go. It was work avoidance. And I quite held it as opposite. And I'll spare you all the lovely, glorious details to say that, you know, this person really worked hard to be heard. You know, disrupting meetings, protesting against particular trainings and development, speaking out, going well above my head to other authorities in the organization, rallying other people to sort of discredit what I was trying to push.
In the moment, Michael, it felt very disruptive and I was quite annoyed. But as I have moved on from that experience, I quite respect what that person was doing. Because they believed that what they were doing was interrupting and disrupting a system, interrupting and disrupting people who were heading down a path that were harmful to young people. In so doing, my first inclination was to hunker down, like authorities do, and like, make people get in line. But the beautiful thing about this is, My secondary action after that didn't work-- me trying to put all my authority out there and sort of put you in your place, and show you what you need to do, and redirect and offer corrective feedback, and that didn't work and the provocation kept coming, it made me take a look and take a step back and say," Maybe the way that I am doing this isn't helpful." And so, I went from trying to just create more equilibrium, and more harmony on the team, to sort of, scrutinizing and interrogating my own ways of being. Which in the end helped me to understand that what I was doing to this person was the very thing we don't want people to do to young people, which is to ‘other’ them, which is to see them as an outcast, which is to like, feel the provocation and take it personally, and then try to push them aside. And that's what I did with my authority, until I realized with lots of coaching and lots of support from colleagues and family, I realized that while I disagreed wholeheartedly with what this person was standing on, I respected the fact that it was drawing me to learn. I respected that my natural inclination was to do what Heifetz talks about in this chapter, which is just to squelch it to cause harmony. It's like to bring things back to order. And I realized that I was othering. I was pushing this person aside, and they wanted to be heard. And the moment I realized that and shifted my posture, and offered a space to be heard, I saw them in a different light. I could see their humanity. I could hold their humanity and disagree with their tactics, but understand where they were standing and why they were pushing. So it made me a much more introspective leader, and it made me adjust aperture on the lens.
It also made me shift how we did some of our work. Because before, it was very myopic, in one way, it was my way, this is the right way. Which is a characteristic or aspect of white supremacy culture; which is like there's one way to do it, and that's it. And we're not engaging other perspectives. And I engaged the perspectives that made me feel good. I engaged the perspectives that checked, double clicked my ideas, that co-signed my initiatives, but I didn't listen to the naysayers. I didn't hear the provocation, I didn't hear the hole-poking. I wasn't open to acknowledging the space between the values I espouse and the values I was actually living. And the system is so much better. Because it made us take a hard look at, even though with our wonderful aims and extremely high sense of rightness, that I had charted a path forward without engaging the people who actually needed to be engaged and to be part of the solution.
Michael Koehler: And as I'm listening to that beautiful case example, I'm making one connection, and, you know, you tell me if it lands or not, which is, there's this one person that is behaving in this provocative way. And if we can argue whether that is-- first thought I was like, "Is that person practicing leadership or not? Are they promoting the issue or are they avoiding the issue?” That's this whole question. But then I was thinking, actually about role in a system, and the role that that person like--yes, that person probably had their own values, and positions and triggers that led to those responses, but in a way, they were also speaking on behalf of a perspective that is in the system and kind of was maybe channeling that perspective. And Heifetz talks about sort of the barometer that we have. Like, there is maybe some informal authority that that person has to like get a sense for the rightness in the system to do that work. And the question around like the readiness in the different faction. And it sounds like maybe that faction was not as ready to engage in all of the activities that you had set out.
Ashley Stewart: And I don't think that faction had considered this notional barometer that, to really sort of take a balcony perspective and sort of say, "Okay, how much distress can Ashley handle? Where is the limit of tolerance for Ashley, and the people above him?" And I think without that, without having pulse on that, it's a very tough thing to regulate. Like, how much you raise the heat, how much you lower the heat. And I don't think what this faction understood was-- maybe they did understand that the level of consequence, but it came to, as a shock when the faction got spewed out of the system.
So, Heifetz talks a lot about the notional barometer, sort of reading the authority figure as this indicator of how much this "system" can withstand. Because you're never going to move as fast or move further than the top leader. It's just not going to happen. Any job I've ever had, in helping people to think about race equity, racial consciousness, identity development, if the CEO, if the president, if the board, if they aren't able to talk about white supremacy culture, or they're uncomfortable delving into particular waters, I don't care how hard you're going to push. That system is going to push back an equal and sometimes greater force.
I sometimes help leaders now as I coach them to understand, like, "What's your barometer? Like, how do you know when you've reached a limit where things can get catastrophic?"
Michael Koehler: And, it's both. It's there in our capacity to do that, but it's also like, they got hired with those capacities and the system was looking for somebody like them. So they also resemble the readiness of the whole system.
Ashley Stewart: Thank you for that.
Michael Koehler: Wow. All right, Ashley. We are already close to our end, so I'm going to invite you to read your quote, one last time, and I will wrap us up with a question about the future.
Ashley Stewart: "They decided to push Selma past the breaking point, and that meant that the nation and the federal government would have to provide the holding environment. It also meant that people might die."
Michael Koehler: Looking forward, Ashley, what actions are you being called to take?
Ashley Stewart: Looking forward in my role in what I do, which is helping people to harness their own internal power, and to be more aware, and more conscious of their identities, their authority, and the privilege and power that they wield, one of the things that I'm reminded from this article is that people without formal power, still have all kinds of power. And it is sometimes work avoidance to spend too much time equivocating about how much power I have or don't have in relation to someone else, and probably more powerful taking stock of that which I can actually harness and wield. I think my leaders are powerful beyond belief, and I think that provocation, that stirring, that really is a deep yearning for all of us, just has to get activated. And people have the ability to see themselves as powerful as they really are. I think there'd be a whole lot more Lafayettes, and a whole lot more moments like they created in Selma where-- there's this beautiful dance Heifetz talks about, I think he uses a word like a modern ballet, where there are steps, there are movements, and there's improvisation that's necessary too. And if I was to pull on this from Dr. King, "Everyone can lead because everybody can serve."
Michael Koehler: Ashley, thank you. Thank you for inspiring us with risk, and with the opportunity, with a possibility that lies in the practice of leadership. It's been such a joy to have you in conversation.
Ashley Stewart: Michael, that's very kind. That's very kind. It's been really fun and igniting to sit with you today. So thank you.
Michael Koehler: We'll be back in two weeks with chapter 10 of Ron Heifetz’s book, Leadership Without Easy Answers, with the title, ‘Assassination’.
This penultimate chapter talks about the risks of practicing leadership. To be blamed, to be pushed out, or even attacked, threatened, or scapegoated; assassination in the metaphorical, but also in the real sense. Our guest has first-hand experience with that. George Papandreou was Prime Minister in Greece from 2009 to 2011 during one of Greece's biggest crises, and he led some of the most ambitious and painful reform projects one can imagine. He's also deeply familiar with Ron Heifetz’s work and he will analyze his own leadership moves during the Euro crisis through the lens of this framework.
If you like the show, follow us and leave a review on your favorite podcasting platform.
On the Balcony is brought to you by KONU - Growing and Provoking Leadership – and hosted by me, Michael Koehler.
We’re produced by Podigy: Editing – Riley Byrne, Daniel Link. Cover art by Kenneth Amoyo and Rosie Greenberg. Our music is called ‘Change in Blue’ by Hannah Gill and the Hours.
Thanks for listening. We'll see you back for episode 10, On the Balcony.