Job Search So Good They Cant Ignore You

Anita Brick: Hi, this is Anita Brick. And welcome to CareerCast at Chicago Booth. To help you advance in your career. Today, we're delighted to be speaking with Cal Newport. Cal received his PhD in computer science from MIT and is currently on faculty at Georgetown University. He writes the popular advice column “Study Hacks” and has been quoted in The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.

He's written an amazing book—I think it's kind of controversial, actually—called So Good They Can’t Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love. It's a little bit sacrilege. Around these halls, we do a program called Pursue Your Passion or some content related to that each year. Tell me, why is passion the bad guy?

Cal Newport: It's a good question. What I found when I was researching this book is that pursuing the goal of being passionate about your career is a good goal, and that is a fantastic place to put your sights. The issue is this idea that you should follow a preexisting passion into your career, because this assumes, first of all, that you have a preexisting passion that you can use to identify what career you should be in. And it also assumes that matching your work to a preexisting interest is actually a real predictor of satisfaction and enjoyment of your work. And neither of those things turns out to be true.

Anita Brick: OK, so today, just 15 minutes ago, I was sitting with someone who said, I'm really passionate about private equity and I’ve got to get into private equity. Looking at this person’s resume, they clearly hadn't been in private equity before. But he has this passion. And sometimes I think passion can happen through osmosis. If you're around people who are talking about something and like, well, that sounds kind of cool, I think I'm going to get excited about that. So you're saying he needs to take a step back and use something else as a driver, rather than this maybe amorphous idea of passion around PE?

Cal Newport: Right. Passion is a sort of ambiguous term, and that's part of its issue. We get into trouble when we have this understanding that passion is somehow like a noun, something that exists, that we can discover that through enough introspection, we figure out that this is the one thing I'm meant to do, and now I will pursue that in my career.

That idea is what gets us in trouble. Passion is much better seen as something that you cultivate in a career, and any number of different careers you can cultivate passion in. The issue is not what career you choose, it's how you approach your work. So it gives you a different way of thinking about the quest for a passionate career. The choice of work is much less important once you make a decision.

Anita Brick: At some level that makes sense to me. At another level. It's like a chicken and egg thing. I'm excited about something which drives me toward it. I mean, if you don't decide your career based on passion, one of the evening students said, I've always been told that passion should be my driver and I've created a fairly successful career. If passion isn't the guide, what is?

Cal Newport: What generates a sense of passion in a career? Well, what we sort of know, from talking to people who love their work and looking at the academic research, is that people who really love their work tend to have traits such as autonomy. So a real sort of control over what they do and how they do it. They also tend to have a sense of mastery in a sense that they're really good at what they do, and people respect that.

And they also tend to have good relationships with people. So we know if you get those types of traits in your work, you're likely to feel passionate about it. So this gives you a more specific goal. Your goal is, well, how do I get a career in which I have autonomy, mastery, and connection to people and a sense of impact?

The answer there is almost always you have to get good at something that's rare and valuable. Those are rare and valuable traits to have in your career. Until you've built up skills that are actually valuable in the marketplace, you don't have anything to offer in return. The big idea in my book is that by focusing on being valuable, you're actually going to have a better chance of ending up passionate about your work.

But this brings us back to, well, how do you get started in the quest to become valuable? You know, the research shows us that it's enough to have an interest in something. So in other words, we're lowering the threshold from “this is my true calling” to “this is something that I find interesting.” And the reason that's important is that if you choose a career because you found that interesting as opposed to other external factors, you're going to have more intrinsic motivation for your work, which is what's actually important for you to do the sort of hard effort required to start to build up rare and valuable skills.

In reality, the threshold is much lower. If something is interesting to you and you can get that job, that is usually enough. And for a lot of people, there are many different things that are interesting to them. In that case, flipping a coin is fine. We're not trying to find one main thing you're meant to do. We're trying to find something that's interesting to you. That's good enough to get started down the path towards developing real passion.

Anita Brick: See, I don't think that's true for MBAs, though. I think by the time they come here and start a program, certainly by the time they are in the latter part, whether they're Exec MBAs with a lot of experience or Full-Time MBAs with 3 or 4 years of work experience, they've narrowed it down. It's not a flip of a coin.

And in fact, they get really disappointed when they're not able to land in an area where they have an interest. Seems a little—I mean, no offense, but it seems a little cavalier to say just flip a coin because there's certain things that have to come before other things in order to even have that as an option.

Cal Newport: Well, flipping a coin would refer to the fact that if you had an interest in banking and in addition had another interest in something else, let's say brand marketing, for example, the flipping the coin metaphor is saying, don't sweat the decision between those two that you're then going to pursue aggressively with and everything you need to do because you're not meant to do one of those over the other.

If you have two things you're interested in, either can be the foundation for building a passionate career. Now where I think you get some relief from my viewpoint on career satisfaction is that when—let's say you go after a particular interest and it doesn't work out, you don't have to feel as if you've missed out on your true calling, because what you've missed out on is you went after something that was interesting to you that didn't work out, but that's fine.

There are many different things you can build passion in, so now you just have to turn your attention to, OK, what is available to me? What am I going to go after next? What’s something else that's interesting to me? Lowering that threshold to interest in something is enough to begin that aggressive pursuit of building skills and developing passion, and knowing you don't have a one true calling really lowers the stakes when something doesn't work out.

Anita Brick: So how do you do that strategically, though? Because if you try something, it doesn't work. Try something else. It doesn't work. There are people, and myself included—I could be interested in a whole bunch of different things, but you can only try so many things before you lose credibility. So how do you make those decisions strategically? Rather than just saying, I'm interested in these, if one doesn't work out, then I'll try another one.

Cal Newport: Well, you choose one. And this is where I say flip a coin. Don't sweat the choice. But once you've chosen something, that's where you have to go at it aggressively. And I think what helps is this idea. I use the term career capital. Career capital, the sum total of your rare and valuable skills that you have. The more career capital you have, the more control you have over your career and the more control you have over your career, the more likely you are to develop into something you're passionate about.

So I talk about replacing the passion mindset, which is this obsessive focus on what am I meant to do? What is this job offering to me? Is this really what I'm meant to do? And replace it with a craftsman mindset where it says, how much career capital do I have? What can I do to acquire more? How can I be better at what I can do?

How can I get ahead? How can I take, say, the traits of deliberate practice that musicians or athletes use to quickly acquire new skills? My type of approach will hopefully minimize the amount of times that you sort of fail to develop career capital because it's saying choose something, don't sweat the choice, and really put in the aggressive hard work to build capital to get good as quickly as possible.

Pursue that capital, not some mythical notion of a true calling, and you will end up with passion. So this craftsman mindset is really minimizing the amount of times you're going to have to sort of shift from industry to industry. If anything, it's the passion mindset that makes people switch too much because they start wondering, well, maybe this isn't my calling and let me try something else.

Oh, I'm not loving it this morning. Maybe this isn't my calling. I'll switch to another job. The craftsman mindset says no, no, put your head down and get good. That sort of clarity there, sort of simplicity of—This is what I'm trying to do: I'm trying to get good, build skill. Everything will come from there—simplifies matters.

Anita Brick: It's an interesting point. I mean, we tell people you need to create value. You have an opportunity to do something, whether it's something on your own and getting funding for it or working in a large corporate setting. Everyone wants value. They want return. One of the Exec MBA students asks, how do you apply your approach if you're a seasoned professional with more than 10 years of work experience and you have to be practical because you have looming financial responsibilities from a mortgage to student loans?

Cal Newport: The craftsman mindset I talk about is much more practical and fits much better to this type of situation than the conventional wisdom, which is the passion mindset. Conventional wisdom will say to you, well, what matters is this magical, preexisting passion, and it might require you to make drastic changes. But if you're passionate about photography, you need to quit your CMO job and go do photography.

That's the conventional wisdom, and that's dangerous. My craftsman mindset approach says it's your capital that matters. You need to have career capital, and then you need to leverage it to take control of your career. So if you're not happy and completely happy in your work, you put your focus on how can I acquire more capital, right? Are there new skills I can develop that are valuable?

And then secondly, am I leveraging my capital if I've made myself indispensable to this company? Well, let me take that out for a spin and use that as leverage to gain more traits in my working life that are meaningful to me. Maybe I want more autonomy. Maybe I want more power. Maybe I want more creativity or impact. Whatever it is you want, use your capital.

Once you have it as leverage to take control, well, this is a much more pragmatic approach. It says, OK, I have responsibilities, I have this job, but I'm looking for a change or more passion. My approach says, great, you're doing an analysis on how can I become even more valuable as quickly as possible.

Anita Brick: There was another question, actually, from another Exec MBA student. He said, after reading your book, a question still comes to mind: how can you be good at something, and how do you expand and leverage your capital, if you're making a career change? I've been in IT for more than ten years and want to move to a new career in general management or private equity. His point is, it's a good point. How do you leverage career capital into a brand new area?

Cal Newport: Well, career capital would say don't make drastic changes in the new area. All that matters is your career capital store. So if you want to make a change, that's fine, but you need to make changes that are relevant to the capital you already have. So you probably aren't going to make a drastic change from one field to another, because career capital theory will tell you that you’ll almost definitely have no leverage in this new position, and therefore you will be less happy. You have less control over things. You'll have less autonomy, less sense of mastery.

So career capital theory’s sort of a break and says all that matters is your capital. So if you're unhappy in it, take the particular technical skills you have and shift to something else where you can continue to develop those skills and gain more traits you want. But don't stop and become, say, an equity trader. That's too much of a jump. You're losing all of your capital and you're starting from scratch. And if it's ultimately the capital that will lead the passion, that type of drastic shift, it won’t make sense.

Anita Brick: Isn't there like an interim step? I mean, isn't there a middle ground where you can say, all right, let me distill all the skills and the experiences and the traits, etc., etc., and say how much of it could be leveraged in a different context?

Cal Newport: That's the right way to think about it. Through that prism of capital. Here are my specific skills, and here's their specific value. If I shift over here, I can use the subset of the skills. And they have this value. And here's how much they'll be worth over there. Those are the right sort of questions to be asking.

Anita Brick: You’re not crushing people's dreams. You're just saying be practical and see how what you have can actually move you toward that dream.

Cal Newport: To some degree, I am actually discounting the amount of value that we place on what we're calling dreams here. The passion mindset convinces us that there's work out there that we're meant to do, and we'll get happiness out of that match that our happiness comes from. This work is matched to some sort of mythical, intrinsic passion. What I'm arguing is that that's not the case for most people.

Passion does not come from the match. It comes from building the capital and leveraging it. So I do a little bit of dream squashing in the sense that I don't put so much value on these grand declarations that I think I'm really meant to do this. For me, that usually means I'm not happy with my current position, and it's easier or satisfying for me to imagine a drastic change fixing everything immediately.

That's nice wishful thinking. That's good sort of cubicle daydreaming, but it doesn't really match the psychology of how people build satisfaction for their work.

Anita Brick: OK, so let me disagree with you a little bit on that. So here I am. I've been doing IT for eight, nine, ten years. I only knew because my family, they weren't equity analysts. They didn't do that kind of work. They all did IT stuff. I grew up and I did IT stuff, but I developed this interest when I was about 12. I got really interested in the markets. I started investing. Instead of going to camp, I wanted to hang around and, you know, people who are doing that, and I started investing at a very young age, but I never thought of it as a career because it just wasn't in my realm of possibility.

But now, after ten years in IT, I want to become an equity analyst, and I don't have the experience, but I've had the interest for a really long time. They’re not leaving IT because they hate it. They've just found that they have an interest somewhere else, and they've had that interest for a long time. How do you resolve those two things?

Cal Newport: Well, so I would come back and I would say in this hypothetical, I say, well, what are the general traits in equity or whatever you're thinking about that's attractive to you? Is it that you're looking for more autonomy, that you're looking for more creativity, that you're looking for more feedback on impact? This much money has been generated. And that it's ultimately these non-job-specific general traits that matter.

Anita Brick: So let me let me stop you for a second. This is a real example. So he came back, because I asked that question—like, this is a really big jump. And it was a time when the market was collapsing and career change was nearly impossible. I mean, nothing is impossible, but, you know, it was really low probability. The reason he wanted to move into equity is he loves the markets.

He loves analyzing companies. He loves looking for unrealized value. So the things he was interested in were not about autonomy or mastery. Of course those are there, too. He is someone really driven toward mastery. But for him it was very job specific. It wasn't something broad that was making him unhappy. He wasn't even unhappy. He just had other things that he wanted to do for very specific reasons.

Cal Newport: Let me be contrarian here. So the supposition here is that he's interested in markets. So he likes the market. Therefore, if I do this thing I'm interested in, if I build my career around that, I'll have a very satisfying, engaging career. The reality is there are many, many more factors beyond just preexisting interest for a career being a source of engagement and satisfaction for you.

Preexisting interest is actually relatively low on that list. If you don't have things like, you know, a sense of autonomy and mastery and impact, you're not going to have a lot of satisfaction out of your career, no matter how much you had a preexisting interest in it. So I would say, I'm going to discount the value of your preexisting interest in this field.

Let's be honest. You switch over to private equity ten years into your career. You're going to be at the bottom of the totem pole. And so you're not going to feel like you have a lot of autonomy. You're not gonna feel like you have a lot of mastery. And no matter how much you think you're interested in markets, that's not enough to give you passion for your work. So I might be back in dream squashing mode there.

Anita Brick: Honestly, I don't think MBAs think that way sometimes. It really is—They need to figure out how to leverage what they have, and you always have to leverage what you have. It wasn't more autonomy, it really was being able to do fundamental analysis on companies.

Cal Newport: I'm going to push back and say that it's really your career capital, not preexisting interest. It plays a major role and passion for what you do.

Anita Brick: But he didn't have capital there, as you put it. He had a hobby in investing, but he had zero work experience in investing.

Cal Newport: Yes, that's where I'm pushing back in dream-squashing mode. If it's capital, not preexisting interest, that makes the most difference, you know, the biggest effect and passion for your career, switching over to equity is a bad move. If your goal was to end up passionate about what you do for a living.

Anita Brick: He had some—a little bit, I mean, very, very micro returns. I mean, because the scale wasn't there, there was no way he wasn't going to do it. And he did. I mean, he ended up going and doing that in a sense. He probably did a little bit of a hybrid of what you're saying. And what I'm saying is that he went into an investment management firm on the IT side.

Cal Newport: Makes a lot more sense, you know, to say your interest in something, preexisting interest in something is only a very small factor in whether or not that's something that you'll end up loving really goes against the grain. So to someone who's been steeped in the passion mindset, the idea is, well, obviously if I'm interested in this, I need to go do it. And I'm saying, well.

Anita Brick: I agree with you. No, you don't. I could say you and I can both decide and open up yet another cupcake bakery. I can bake a little. To me, that's different than saying I want to leverage something I've actually acted on, not just a whim, but something I've acted on. I built this portfolio personally to move into a new career. I think it's different. I think it's different than just saying I want to become …. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but I want to become a yoga instructor.

Cal Newport: It's different, but not too much different. So I would say, well, what's the real capital career capital value of running a, you know, a successful personal stock portfolio that doesn't give you much career capital? What is the value of your skills in the marketplace you're going is sort of the brutal key question.

Anita Brick: Part of it is what you shine light on. If you and I looked at his skills and experience in IT and we started disaggregating it. How many times has he done this kind of work for someone in the investment management field? Capital is capital, but what you highlight and the context you put it in then helps it become either more valuable, and you have a greater ability to leverage it in different places, depending on how you actually give it some context and what you focus on.

I grew up in a very entrepreneurial family, where my father started his first company at 22, and I spent a lot of time from the time I was really little in this very entrepreneurial setting, understanding how things are done, looking at strategy and problem-solving. But I never actually owned a company. But I could take all of that and leverage it in—which I did, into heading up strategy for a bank startup, even though I had never actually started a company.

Cal Newport: Right. I think you're absolutely right. And I think in the concrete example we're talking about here, the IT turned equity person, you know, that makes a lot of sense. And it sounds like that's what he did. It's shifting the context of your skills is sort of like black belt career capital theory. I think you're absolutely right. And it sounds like this is more or less what he did.

And that's a really smart decision. I think that's a sort of a good, nuanced way of looking at it. You have capital and you’ve got to figure out how do I leverage it. That might mean shifting the context you put it in and making those sort of nuanced changes to it.

Anita Brick: So it sounds like step number one with a lot of this is doing a career capital analysis.

Cal Newport: Yeah. Do inventory. And what can you do? What are the actual skills that are rare and valuable? And how rare and valuable are they? That's the foundation of getting more passion in your career, not doing an introspective analysis of your interest and passions.

Anita Brick: Out of context, a professor here, Harry Davis, once said, it's so much more creative to think inside the box than to think outside the box.

Cal Newport: Yeah, it forces you to actually deal with reality, which forces much more creative, nuanced solutions.

Anita Brick: Right? Got it. So let's switch gears just a little bit. We've been talking about career capital, but you have two different types of career capital that you talk about in the book, auction and winner takes all. An evening student said in your book, Alex, one of the people you talk about, thought he was in one kind of career capital, auction, when he was in another, winner takes all. He says, How do I determine which I'm in and then determine what skills I need to build? So first of all, what is auction versus winner take all.

Cal Newport: Yeah. So it's a distinction between different career marketplaces. We can use that terminology in different types of fields. Or career marketplaces have demands for different types of capital. In a winner-take-all career marketplace, there are very limited types of career capital that's valuable. In other words, there's a couple skills that are very clearly identified, and these are the skills that matter.

People that are really, really good at these skills have huge success, and the people who aren't are left behind. So my example in the book was Alex, who was in television writing. It's very clear your ability to write a good TV script is the career capital that matters. That's the skill. And if you can do that better than most other people, you can have a fabulous career.

There's no sort of doubt or questions there. In a lot of other fields, there is no single type of capital, no single skill that's important. So what people can do is build up several different types of skills and then say, who's interested in this particular unique combination of skills I have? And this has a different type of market.

So I use the example of Mike, who was in environmental engineering, and he built up a sort of eclectic collection of skills. He ran a startup. So he has skills in running startups, a master's degree, had worked on some projects on carbon markets, in alternative energy markets. He had a real skill in those as well. And he basically then said to the marketplace, for who is this combination of skills—you know, startup entrepreneurship and, you know, advanced understanding of alternative energy and markets—important?

And he ended up at a cleantech venture capital firm, two different types of approaches and some sorts of fields. It's clear what your skill needs to be. Do that. Well. If you're going to be a professor, you need to do research in your field better than you know most other people. In other sorts of endeavors, you can build up a mix of skills and then see who's interested in that combination.

Anita Brick: Things like general management, they're a whole lot of different things that you could build. As an example, you talk about testing and practicing. One weekend student asked, how can a person create safe ways to test and practice without losing his job?

Cal Newport: As a sort of key strategy that comes up often when you're trying to find—you have this career capital and you're trying to figure out breakthroughs, you know, different ways to leverage it or apply it, that's going to catch attention. And a sort of strategy I recommend is that you make, to use Peter Sims’ term, “little bets,” or to use Frans Johansson’s term, you could call them purposeful bets. I mean, basically the idea is you do small projects and you follow them through to completion, and then you step back and analyze the reaction to the projects. So you're sort of looking for what's catching on and what's not catching on. Theory behind this is there's no systematic way to figure out in advance what particular path is going to be suddenly very successful, because if there was a systematic way to do that, everyone else would know about that and that opportunity would no longer be open.

So it makes sense that you need to do a lot of these little experiments as a way of probing what's valuable for people with my capital and what's not. It just doesn't have to threaten your job position. What makes the most sense is to make your little bets things that will be valuable to your current organization or startup, regardless of whether or not they end up being a big breakthrough success.

So if you're within a corporation and you want to try experiments, let's try, you know, this new system. Let's try this new approach. You get buy-in from the people above. You say this is an experiment. I think it could be valuable. Here's what I'm going to do and we'll step back and evaluate it. Get their buy-in.

Now. There's no real risk. They're not going to be upset at you for doing this. But if you do enough of these, you're going to eventually find that bet that pays off big. So it's a smart way of sort of probing where the real value for your capital is and getting the most out of it. It's not going rogue.

Get permission if you need to as an organization, but still keep that mindset of trying things, seeing them through to completion, and then looking and seeing what is the evaluation of it, what's people's reaction to it.

Anita Brick: So it sounds like you've actually answered another question too, because one of the alumni said, I really appreciate your approach to stretching yourself in ways that scare you. I'm in a solid job that I really like. We do things a certain way and that way really works well and is profitable. The people you mentioned in your book have the independence to drive themselves toward excellence. What do you advise someone like me who has more constraints?

Cal Newport: Well, I don't know that the scare part's all that important. It's the stretch part that's important. So, I mean, we know from the sort of study of performance psychology that to continue getting better at something, you have to keep stretching yourself beyond where you're comfortable in that stretch and you get better. I think it's a misunderstanding, though, to think that discomfort that comes from stretching is discomfort because you're worried or scared that it's going to upset people.

That's not the discomfort I'm talking about. When I talk about stretching, the discomfort I'm talking about, there is the sort of mental strain of trying to push your skills to the new level. So it can be an incredibly conventional thing. Right? You're a programmer and you're trying to master a much more complicated programming framework. There's nothing risky about it, but it's going to be very uncomfortable because it's just too hard, right? It's mentally hard. You're straining yourself in a way that a lot of people try to avoid.

Anita Brick: People who are either in an MBA program, or have been in and graduated from the MBA program, know about stretching discomfort when it comes to you intellectually. You're just saying find ways—and sometimes I think people—we all get a little bit complacent or lazy and don't continue to look at the example in the book with the musician that you referenced, but really a good one because he wasn't having fun doing it. It wasn't like we get to do this now. He just did it because he knew it was going to give him an edge over everyone else.

Cal Newport: That's right. And for musicians, for chess players, for athletes, they all know this. They all know that it's that stretch, that uncomfortable “my muscle is burning,” is what matters. We've lost a lot of that in knowledge work and in sort of as Anders Ericsson, the sort of professor who is really the sort of leading thinker on this type of deliberate practice, said, if you just keep showing up and doing your job, you're going to quickly hit a plateau and not get any better.

So the people who jump ahead in their field are the people who don't just do what they know how to do well and just seek the state of flow. And it's just enjoyable. So people who continue to challenge themselves, to continue to stretch themselves, and they burst through that plateau and they find out that at that level of the atmosphere, they're kind of on their own. So it's sort of a great strategy for breaking out.

Anita Brick: Well, they become much greater than the challenge because there's always someone who's going to be working to get better. If you're not the one who's looking to push and get better, you're going to be at the back of the pack.

Cal Newport: For example, in chess, if you take chess players who have played for ten years and you say this group of chess players are grandmaster level and this group of players are not, what's the difference? Well, this has been studied. For example, they find that it's not hours of time spent playing a practicing test. It's actually about the same for both of these groups.

They've been playing for ten years for about the same number of hours. The difference was that the grandmasters spent about three times more of their hours than the non grandmasters doing basically stretching—where they're playing with a coach who's stretching them and giving them challenges and pushing them past their limits. Most people in knowledge work are like the non-grandmaster chess players.

They're working really hard and they're doing 100 hours a day and they're, you know, reading business books like mine and looking for inspiration and checking their email every five minutes. But the few people that are taking those times and actually stretching themselves consistently, they become the grandmasters. And they're the ones who end up making the big differences.

Anita Brick: And ultimately, you would say they, in the end, find passion there.

Cal Newport: Right, as they build their capital. If they also leverage that capital to take control of their career, they end up with passion. And of course, the warning here is a lot of people become excellent and are workaholics and very stressed out. So it's not just getting good. It's also about leveraging your skills to take control of your career. But getting good is that first step.

Anita Brick: Do you have time for one more question?

Cal Newport: Sure.

Anita Brick: OK, good. We like to wrap up with some concrete practical takeaways. So what are three things that you would advise someone who wants to excel in his or her career or career? Search, whether the person is just starting out or has 10 or 15 years of work experience, what are three things someone can start doing right now?

Cal Newport: Let's say first, change your mindset so that passion becomes the goal of your career, not the starting place. Second, adopt the craftsman mindset. Approach your work from the point of view of how valuable are my skills and what's the quickest and most aggressive way that I can increase that value. And three, keep stepping back as you start to build value and ask, how can I use this as leverage now?

What traits do I really want in my career? And how can I use my value as it grows to keep these traits in my career? That's where the courage comes in, right? Where you actually have to leverage your skills to say, this is what I want, not what you want as a company. Those three things, I think, is a recipe for a passionate, compelling career.

Anita Brick: Thanks so much. I love that you took a very different approach to this whole subject matter, and thank you for making the time.

Cal Newport: Well thank you, I enjoyed it.

Anita Brick: And if you want to learn more about what Cal is doing, you can go to CalNewport.com. And thank you all for listening. This is Anita Brick with CareerCast at Chicago Booth. Keep advancing.