In this episode of The Purposeful Banker, Alex Habet is joined by Adam Blue, Q2 chief technology officer, in a discussion about balancing speed with patience and intention to build a resilient, diverse business.
Video
Helpful Links
[Website] BankOnPurpose
[Podcast] Purposeful Banker With Shon Cass
[Podcast] Purposeful Banker on Security
Transcript
Alex Habet
Hi, and welcome to the Purposeful Banker, the leading commercial banking podcast brought to you by Q2 PrecisionLender, where we discuss the big topics on the minds of today's best bankers. I'm your host, Alex Habet, and today we're continuing on our little journey that we started a few episodes ago, as we explore new topics across the banking and tech space in general. For example, a couple of episodes ago, we got to hear directly from the co-founder of a bank in Texas with true purpose. Shon Cass from Texas Security Bank taught us about all the trials and tribulations that they went through and all the learnings and how they fit in the world today and how they compete today in their space. It was an excellent story in how they put purpose into their mission.
And then in the last episode we chatted a little bit about fraud and security, which is in the periphery of every banking business. It was a complete left turn, but it's also very necessary to bring into the regular fabric of our show, as well. But the good news is that we're going to continue expanding on this kind of content going forward, and I'm very excited to bring you today's guest. Adam Blue is Q2's chief technology officer. He's a very well-known fixture in our walls and certainly beyond them. For me, personally, it's an honor to have him on the show. He's regularly sharing profoundly interesting perspectives on things that often don't even involve finance or technology directly, to begin with at least. But I will say there they're also often tear jerkers, which I'm a big fan of, Adam, by the way.
But Adam's got a big job, creating, coordinating Q2's technology strategy and leading the innovation drive for the firm in general. He's someone who's always got the finger on the pulse of what's happening right now, whether it's in technology or in financial services or even in the world in general, which, Adam, I suspect that's where you're getting a lot of your content that leads to tear jerkers. That last one with the James Webspace telescope in Austin at the town hall, that one got me a little bit, so thank you for that. But Adam Blue, welcome to the show.
Adam Blue
Hey, thanks, Alex. Super happy to be here. It's great day to talk about banking.
Alex Habet
Yeah. So look, before we dive in, given that this show is about purpose and perspective, usually around the banking business, I'm just curious, and this is just shoot off the hip, just a gut reaction here. What's been driving your purpose and your perspective? What are you thinking about more today, let's say, than you were a year ago? What's front of mind? Give us a quick reaction on that.
Adam Blue
Yeah, for sure. I turned 50 about a year ago, so I think about being old a lot. I've been bald a long time, since my late 20s. So as a signifier of age, that one I'm pretty used to. But I hit 50, and I think it's natural just to be introspective and think about if at some point I don't work in fintech anymore or I move to another industry, what impact will I have made? What will I have really left behind? So one of the underpinnings behind that is just looking back and thinking about what can people do accretively over a long period of time that makes a difference in the industry or even just for another person. I think about that a lot. I think COVID probably factored into that a little bit, too, because there was a lot of thinking time, certainly during COVID.
Alex Habet
Well, I really appreciate that perspective, and I think a lot of us have gone through something similar. I've definitely gone through the whole bald thing. I think I was at the same timeframe. There's a lot of bald people that come on this podcast, it turns out. So look, those who know you well, and there's plenty of them here at Q2 ... are you in the low single digits of employee ID number or double digits?
Adam Blue
Yeah.
Alex Habet
Do you know where you stand on that?
Adam Blue
Yeah, I think I was probably 22nd in terms of people hiring in and then there's probably less than 20 of us now that have been there at least as long as I have.
Alex Habet
Yeah. So look, I mean, you're literally at the grassroots of this company, and those who know you well, they talk about your passion, what you bring to the company, and certainly to the people that work here. And by and large, it's even written on our website, that conviction that technology can and will change the lives of people, businesses, and financial institutions everywhere. Look, it's no secret. You're someone who ... you're pouring your heart and soul into this place, into developing talented, curious self-starters who are empowered to think of technologies in new ways. On behalf of the Q2 family, really appreciate it.
Many of us were thrilled to learn that you'll be speaking at BankOnPurpose. Frankly, as a former client and attendee of BankOnPurpose back in the day, I mean, I couldn't think of a better person to be up there. So I'm truly excited about this. But look, I don't have a time machine. I don't know exactly what you're going to be talking about in that. All I have to go with is a title, but it's certainly an eye-catching title. It says here it's listed as, Don't Forget About Slow. Now, before I let you dive into a little preview of what you're planning on talking about, as someone who is in sales, I'm talking to banks and bankers every day. I mean, we have to sell fast all the time. It's like fast this or fast that. So I'm really curious, what's your take on slow? Would you mind giving us a little bit of a sneak peek without stealing your own thunder in a month?
Adam Blue
Yeah, for sure. So it's interesting, I went under mild protest, my wife took me to a pretty amazing garden this weekend. And what I was struck by, the property that the garden sits on was owned by someone who settled in this part of the Pacific Northwest where I live probably 100, maybe 130 years ago. There was an abandoned rock quarry in the middle of the garden that is now this spectacular sunken garden. It's got trees in it. It's got amazing arrangements, there's beautiful pads. It's multilevel. It's three-dimensional with walkways and stairs. And I'm going to be honest, I was not super enthused about going, but when we got there, there's something different about the air in this place in a way that's profoundly meaningful. People are quiet and they walk through the garden and they look at it. And what you're looking at is 100 to 150 years of just time and care and work effort and bending over and picking up leaves and branches and figuring where to plant things and making changes.
It's just extraordinary when you think about the time scale. I'm not an arborist, but I don't think there's anything you can do to make a tree grow faster than a tree grows. There's two trees we walked past, sequoias that are bigger around than you can really comprehend. They were planted in 1939, according to the plaque. So I was both struck that you could grow something so magnificent in less than 100 years, 1939 to 2022, but also somebody made a hole in the dirt with their hands and planted that tree knowing that they'd never see it. They'd never see its majesty. They would never be able to see the tree the way that other people would experience it, and they did it anyway. So to me, that's the magic of slowness.
Doing things that build up over time and that accrete value to me is a gift you give the world that you probably don't get a lot back from all the time. I think that's interesting because you were talking about Texas State Bank or Texas Security Bank, excuse me, and having them on a podcast. You think about the history of that bank and when they were founded and where they are now and their purpose. A lot of these financial institutions that we work with, their purpose goes a lot farther than, "I'm going to make sure that the money you direct deposit is going to be there when you swipe a debit card." It's not that that's not important, but their notion of purpose is on a fundamentally different time scale.
And the root of the talk, if we TLDR it, is just, let's not lose that. I mean, we'll talk more today, but you could just cut it off there, but let's not lose that part. Let's not lose a 100-year-old Sequoia in a sunken garden in Victoria, British Columbia, in pursuit of next year's great roses. I think you can have both, if that makes sense. And inextricably, I think the two are tied together. I think it's actually difficult to have one without the other. Maybe think about a musician, a really gifted musician. I saw the Eagles in concert, and you think, those dudes are 70. They're 70. So you go to an arena and you sit down and they come out and it's just staggering. It's a work of musical theater more than it is ... it's a rock concert. Joe Walsh was there. There's the requisite amount of rocking. But what it really is, is it's a work of musical theater. And man, they sound great. They sound great at 70.
I hope I can do one thing in my life as well as Don Henley can sing when he's 70. Whatever it is, cleaning toilets. I want to clean toilets the way Don Henley sings when he's 70. If I could do one thing that well at 70 years old, I'll consider myself very, very lucky, very successful. And you go to that concert and you go to a show and you think, man, this is going to be a cool show. There's a vibe and people are excited. You sit at the show and it's louder. It's the first big show I went to after COVID.
And then invariably there's that part ... I'll go to the bathroom when they play the song that I'm just not that into. I walked out of the stadium and I'm like, "I've got to pee bad," because, I don't know, if you can find somebody between the ages of 35 and 70 that does not know the words to every Eagle's hit, I mean it's the background soundtrack of the United States in a sense culturally and probably much of North America.
But there were people all ages at this show. Every song that comes on, it's like, "Oh, I forgot that was an Eagles song. I forgot that was a Joe Walsh song," whatever it is. But that set of achievements, it's built up. Their first work is in the first half of the '70s. They broke up, they got back together, they toured, they've lost some members. Now Vince Gill tours with them. I had no idea that guy was so talented. It's just really extraordinary. So you think about people coming into the band, people coming out of the band, you think about the work they did over time, the way they build that catalog. You think about listening to a song and you can immediately tell who wrote it, who sang it, you can just tell.
All of this is just background knowledge that lingers somewhere in my amygdala. I have no idea how it got there. AM radio, FM radio, great movie soundtracks, whatever, junior high school dances. But it's all there. It's all there, so it's meaningful, but I think it's more meaningful in a sense because it accretes over time. I don't think you can sit down and say, "I'm going to write 20 number one hits next week." It's just not something you can do. And the fact that they are different and the variety of music they bring, and I think again, you have to set out to do great work every day, and then the accumulation of that work over time, it's just extraordinary. So whether it's the Eagles, it's Jean-Michel Basquiat, it's Frida Kahlo, you name it. You look at a body of someone over time.
And in a sense, that's the way I like to think of a financial institution. That's the way I like to think of a software company. It's a group of people focused on an interesting set of problems who have passion around putting talent to work, solving those problems. Then that gives rise to this value that just grows and it accretes over time in a way that it's magical, I think, in a way that a lot of things are not necessarily magic, I think. If you don't understand software engineering, you might look at someone who writes piece of code and it does something amazing, you're like, "That's magic." I don't view it as magic because I know a little bit about coding and I've written some code, but the fact that you could deliver something that would work over 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, whatever it is, that part to me, that part is crazy, is how you make that stuff works over time. I think that's really interesting.
When I talk to bankers, when I talk to people in the industry, when I talk to software people, the people I really respect, I think, have that perspective about what's this going to look like in a year, five years? What's the garden going to look like when somebody else maintains it? How do I invite other people to plant their flowers? I could probably mix and match this metaphor to death, but I think you get it.
Alex Habet
Yeah. I would expect, though, that you're also looking for reasonable perspective, as well. They're not expecting everything to be perfect in a year. As long as they understand that the journey's there, the incrementalism is there, which I agree with you, by the way. Incrementalism is the unsung hero of everything, and we never talk about it because it's just, yeah, I guess it's boring maybe to talk about. Hey, you're going to get one extra thing, but when these things compound, its compound interest, I guess, over long term, it's great.
Adam Blue
Yeah. I think some of it's in our language. I consider myself a bit of a student of the English language, and I am shocked how hyperbolic the average sentence in a company is now. I'm sure I'm part of the problem. I'm pointing fingers at me, too, but do we really need to say laser focused ever again? I mean you want to talk, why can't we just say focused? The average human being is not very focused. I've met exactly zero human beings that are laser focused. Not everything can have laser focus. Not everything can be delightful. Like, man, reach for the brass ring for sure, but I think some of it's even just in the language we create. I'd love to see release notes for a piece of software that are just like, "This is 4% better than last time and we hope that makes a difference to you, because it was real hard to get this 4%."
But to your point, it's hard to get excited about 4%. Instead it's got to be some big, loud, hyperbolic thing. I think to some extent, that's the enemy a little bit of building that value over time and being ... Because slow and intentional, those words are in the same neighborhood. I don't know if they live in the same house or if they swim in the same pool, but man, they're in the same neighborhood for sure.
Alex Habet
Yeah. Well let's actually look at, right now we're talking to a lot of executives that work at banks all across the country. They listen to the show. Let's bring in, if we can, just a simple tangible example. Just make it relevant for them. What's the first thing that maybe that comes to mind, something that they should maybe think twice on? Is there a use case or something that you gravitate toward typically?
Adam Blue
Yeah, for sure. One of the things I talk to people about a lot, especially lately, is what do you hire for? Well, first off, we talk about employees like they're interchangeable units of execution of process, which is, I mean that's just boring. That's super boring. But if you think of each individual employee as a person and that person fitting into an overall community that you built, that is your workplace, some questions like, what do you hire for? And I think it's interesting because in my experience, if you look at the way entry-level managers, mid-level managers, and even senior managers hire, the more comfortable they are with the explicit skills in the role, like so you run sales and you know how to qualify whether or not people have the sales chops pretty easily. So those people, when they're hiring, tend to get very focused on what's the cultural fit, what do I think they'll be like a year from now, two years from now, three years from now, how are they going to grow in the role?
When you're hiring for a role where you're not as comfortable, let's say you're a salesperson at heart and you're a CEO, you've got to go make a very senior technology hire. The focus tends to be, in my opinion, a lot on the skill set, the domain expertise. So because this role is unfamiliar to me, I'm more focused on the difference between what that person knows or knows how to do and what I know how to do. When I hire these roles that are more similar to what I do, I focus more on rapidly qualifying and enter out of that and then making these cultural and personality choices. I mean it matters. The way people fit in organizations matters tremendously. I see financial institutions hiring technology talent. I think it's very cool. I think it's pretty exciting, especially as it comes down market.
The question at some level would be, OK, if you're going to hire that talent, what are you hiring for? Are you hiring for a specific set of technology expertise? Are you hiring for proof that somebody's delivered something before? Are you hiring around an industry that you think is similar, parallel? Are you hiring based on the strength of the resume, the strength of the CV? And those are all valid. I'm not saying there's a right way or a wrong way, but I think it's tough to hire for people to help you transform the organization because I think it's easy to get very tied up in what's that person going to do on day one? What do they know that we don't know? Like there's a secret and you're going to hire a person and that person has a secret. It's in their wallet. They're going to get their wallet out and they're going to open it up and there's going to be a card and it's going to be like, I don't know, "View JS, JavaScript framework," like that's the secret. And that, in my experience, is not really how that works out.
One of the tangible things I'd say is when you hire an employee, I mean, you're going to hire them for a whole career arc, and thinking about where could that person be in a year or three years might lead to a very different hiring decision than where is that person going to be in six months? Where are they going to be in 90 days? What do they look like right now? And if you don't hire people for room with growth, they won't help your company grow. You'll outgrow them faster than they can grow. We did a thing for a while before boot camps and before all this monetization of engineering skills, where we went out and we hired a bunch of young people, although not exclusively young people, for engineering and we ran them through our own boot camp. One of our requirements was that they not have a computer science degree, and that was not super popular in the Austin market among recruiters and people with computer science degrees.
But I had a lot of talent already that had CS degrees, and they looked a certain way and they were predominantly male and we did not have a lot of engineers of color. We thought, there's two ways we can do this. We can complain about what's in the marketplace, people looking for jobs that are meeting our existing criteria, or we can simply go hire people because we believe they could be great engineers. And it was slow. I mean, it just was. We hired them, we boot camped them. They had a lot of enthusiasm. They were very hungry. I think we had our pick of some excellent, excellent talent at the time because we were willing to be very flexible. But this was a five-year payoff on a lot of these employees.
On the flip side, when I look back at a lot of those employees and where they are in the organization, two or three of them worked together to build what will certainly be probably the most important technology framework we've worked on around integration in the past five or 10 years. Two or three of them are in absolutely critical leadership and management roles at this time, and they still represent a pretty significant fraction of our nontraditional staffing for engineering. We hired a lot of female engineers, we hired a lot of engineers from the communities with people of color. And if we had not hired them, our employee base would not look the way it does today in engineering. And I say bet. It was a pretty safe bet. We hired very talented people that were hungry to do the work and passionate about the job, and the vast majority of them still work at Q2 and they are, in my opinion at least, well above average performers because we gave them time to develop.
So, you can think about the way you hire and are you hiring for a multiyear term? Are you hiring people that are very junior that can learn your culture and can come up in your organization or are you really focused on trying to hire people that are very senior from outside? Because it can be very tough to do. But I totally understand the appeal because maybe the board or even the public markets say, "We want to see improvements now. We want to see digital transformation now. We want to see you make those changes." And I think there's a lot of pressure to go fast and do things quickly, but I think you can do things quickly and give people time to grow. You can do both. I think finding a way to drive that balance between those two things, that's a key characteristic of leadership. So being incremental, thinking about having small wins and accreting them and building people up, I think is pretty powerful, as opposed to let's just go get someone who's already done this once, they already know how to do it, they'll come to our organization and do it.
I think part of the challenge is not that those people aren't great. This is not a conversation about hiring managers getting hornswoggled. It's a conversation about the fact that somebody's already done something once in another organization is very powerful as a signal, but if that organization's challenges and that organization's profile is very different than yours, expecting them to come and have a similar success in your organization could be a huge, huge mistake, because it may be that that's not the way you're going to bake that cake. So I think that's a pretty concrete takeaway.
Alex Habet
Is this something you guys are still doing today or was this a project that was at one time in the past and you're just looking back and seeing how great? Is this something you're continuing to do today?
Adam Blue
Yeah, so we did it from 2012 to about the early part of 2016. And then what we found is a lot of that talent was going off to coding boot camps and basically paying for that expertise in exchange for placement assistance. So we brought the program down. I think we pretty well mined out the talent in Austin, but that mindset of looking for people that were different, hiring junior engineers, being diverse. So what we've started to do is working with organizations. There's a great one called Code to College. So we'll have a lot of interns from the Code to College program. These are high school kids, and they'll come in and write production code. I mean, that program is excellent. And then we've started to build a pipeline for them where we bring them in, they intern with us, we identify them, and then we move them right to junior production scale jobs.
So I like to think we still do it, we just do it with the help of a partner now because the community has evolved in the way that they make that possible. But I think it's super important. This is a personal bias of mine, but I like organizations that have a relatively small number of deeply experienced people who are super passionate, that are capable of exercising a lot of discretion and have a lot of experience doing things the wrong way. And then I like having a ton of people who have a lot of energy and don't know that what they're trying to do won't work. Sometimes it works just because they don't know it won't. And that mix is really interesting to me.
The employees that I have the least resonance with often are mid-career, big, stacked up resume and they're in the middle. They've lost some of the enthusiasm of being early to the job and they have not yet progressed to the point where they have a lot of depth of experience where they've seen a lot of the things that can happen a couple times, because that relationship between the most senior engineers and the most junior engineers to me is pretty powerful in terms of the way it works. We have great employees at Q2 that are mid-career. I wouldn't say otherwise. But in terms of the way I understand the organization, what gets me the most excited is that interaction between them. I think it's really powerful, and I think creating those conditions is no accident. It's not something that just magically happens. It's a path you choose and then invest in. I think that's the takeaway.
Alex Habet
Excellent. Excellent. So again, you covered some of the business strategy side of it and then the people strategy side of it. Anything else that you'd share with this audience to close us out?
Adam Blue
If I was going to share anything, here's a little secret about technology. There's very little that's new. There's just very little. Software construction is not radically different than it was 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago. The web is super important. Mobile programming is important. I think of it like a pendulum. So when you start out in your career, the pendulum is at some point in its swing. So at one end, the other end, the middle, and then you work two or three or four years and the pendulum swings and you think, man, that must be progress. Things are changing. It's going to get better and it's going to stay better forever. And things swing in that direction and then people sour on certain things and things fall out of favor, market conditions change, technology conditions change. And then the pendulum comes back the other way.
We started with mainframes. All the computing happens in a centralized location and people are on green screen dumb terminals. And then we end up with PCs. So the pendulum's swinging toward distributed computing. And then PCs get connected to the internet and you start doing all of the application rendering on the server side with HTML pages and all built. Then we get JavaScript to drive interactivity in the browser. We get Ajax. That begets more JavaScript framework than you could literally shake a fore, and we start to move some of the computing back onto the client. Then we get mobile and mobile moves a lot of computing back onto the client.
And then people say they've got mobile performance issues and now big data's important. We start moving stuff to the cloud. The cloud is just a computer you pay more for that somebody else looks after for you because they have better scale than you do.
We start pushing a bunch of workload in the cloud. It's just another version of swinging that pendulum. So there's 20 of those pendula, I think that's the plural, in technology and they're all swinging back and forth. At any given point in time, things look way different than they did two years ago. But the way I see it, maybe just because I'm old now, it's entirely possible, is it's just different pictures of where all of these individual pendulum swings are at any given point in time. So, new technologies come along that can be exciting. Things get rethought. The progression of hardware or the software stack just gets stronger. But you think about fundamental distributed computing, you think about mobile apps and you think about the web browser. Much of the BSD PCP stack was written in the '70s at a thing called ARPANET, Advanced Research Projects, I think Association. And that was the forerunner to the internet.
So this Mac that I'm on now in a Windows box and a Linux box, they all have very, very similar TC PIP code that was written by a few people a long time ago. And over time, people ported that code to different operating systems. But the lingua franca of the internet, which is TCP and HTTP, it's decades old and we make minor improvements and things get shaved and we have HTTP improvements and Google will release this and will release that. But at the end of the day, a lot of that stuff is reasonably static in the way it works. You can learn how it works. It's interesting to know how it works. And everything is built up on that underlying foundation.
Alex Habet
So you think we're going to just stay on that trajectory, you think for the foreseeable generation?
Adam Blue
For sure.
Alex Habet
Or two? Cool.
Adam Blue
Yeah, it's just not super interesting to change that stuff. You know what I mean? I've used this example in more talks at Q2 than I care to. Has it ever occurred to you that every railroad in North America has rails that are the same distance apart?
Alex Habet
Nn-nn.
Adam Blue
They are. They're the same width, they're the same height, and they're the same distance apart. We used to have different width rails in the U.S. You would take your cargo to one place and then they would offload it and put on something else, go to the other rails. There was some technology where they had rail cars that could switch rail width. Eventually someone was like, "This is just dumb." So the fact that everyone agrees on how TCP will work is more important than it being particularly efficient.
It's the same thing in financial services. I don't know anybody ever who's told me, "Man, the best read I've ever had in my life is the green book, "The details of the ACH specification." But we all agree on it. Well, actually, nobody agrees on it. We mostly agree on it. There's lots of arguments about what's in the green book.
But the point is the agreement, the interoperability outweighs the actual value of specific implementation. I'm pretty sure for lots of use cases, you could come up with a network scheme that would be more efficient than HTTP over TCP, but it's omnipresent. Your printer speaks HTTP natively now. Your phone speaks HTTP natively. Your light bulbs speak HTTP natively. I mean, you can put an HTTP firmware implementation on almost any kind of device for probably like $5 or $6 with a chip from Foxconn. So you get to the point where the fact that it's HTTP is more important than HTTP being amazing because it's omnipresent. It's the same as all the rails being the same width. It's the same kind of thing.
This can actually retard progress as well. I don't want to get too deep into it today because we're still working out this for the BankOnPurpose conference, but the containerization of shipping has had massive secondary effects on how things work. We felt a lot of them during the pandemic. You think about all those pictures of shipping containers stacked up at a port and they're at the port of Los Angeles and you think, "Why don't they take them to another port?" You can't pull a ship that's built to carry thousands of shipping containers into a little port. It just doesn't work. You end up in a scenario where it's efficient to have a relatively small number of competitors in global shipping. That's great when it works, and man, when it doesn't work, it's just a disaster. That one ship, was it the Achille Lauro? Is that the one that stopped up the Panama Canal? I can't remember. Or no, Ever Given, that's it.
Alex Habet
The Ever Given in the Suez Canal.
Adam Blue
It's the Ever Given, right?
Alex Habet
In the Suez Canal, yeah.
Adam Blue
Yeah, yeah, that's right. And global shipping just stops, for I feel like it was eight days, 10 days, 11 days.
Alex Habet
Well it was one-sixth or something of the world's cargo goes through it. Yeah, it's incredible.
Adam Blue
Yeah, that doesn't seem like a good idea either. One-sixth of the world's cargo goes ... That would be like, hey, if you want to come to Vancouver Island, you've got to drive on my driveway. That's a lot of pressure on me to keep my driveway clear. But it's efficient when it works. These systems are highly efficient when they're 100% functional, but they tend to have antipatterns in them around resilience, and seeing those antipatterns, it's difficult to see. And when they happen, man, they can be super painful. Again, some of the desire to do things quickly leads to an atrophy of the set of infrastructure that lets you do things slowly, but sometimes slow is better than fast and broken. I think that's the way I would think.
Alex Habet
Oh, well, I guess I can speak for everyone in the audience to say, wow, we can't wait to actually hear the full show next month in Austin. For those of you who can't make it in person to that, we'll certainly run a replay of it here. So look, Adam, I want to leave it here for now, but I really want to thank you for coming on here, sharing some of your latest perspectives. And again, I'm looking forward to next month, catching the show. Any last word for our audience before we let you go here?
Adam Blue
Yeah, slow is beautiful sometimes, man. It can be really, really amazing to do things slowly.
Alex Habet
Awesome. Alright. Well again, thank you, Adam, for joining us today, and we hope to see you back here soon on The Purposeful Banker.
Adam Blue
For sure. Thanks.
Alex Habet
Well, that's it for this week's episode of The Purposeful Banker. If you want to catch more episodes of the show, please subscribe wherever you like to listen to your podcasts, including Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and more. And if you have a minute to spare, let us know what you think by dropping a comment. You can also head over to q2.com to learn more about the company behind this content. Until next time, this is Alex Habet and you've been listening to The Purposeful Banker.
