Janis Zech: Hello, and welcome to another edition of the RevOps Lab Podcast. My guest today is Jeremy Lamondet. He is the top sales operations voice on LinkedIn, has a lot of diversified experience, I would say, in finance, but also worked at companies like Bitly that I think a lot of you know, Better.com, Hallward, Headway, hugely successful app with more than thirty million downloads. And I think it's just fair to say he's a really experienced operator, who is now a fractional revenue operations leader and has helped multiple companies grow to more than hundred million in ARR. Very warm welcome. Great to have you.

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. Great to be on the show.

Janis Zech: Alright. Jeremy, maybe for our listeners, could you briefly introduce yourself?

Jeremy Lamondet: Sure. Sounds good. Well, it's nice to meet you all. My name is Jeremy. Been leading revenue operations for the past eighteen years. As Janis mentioned, done a lot of B2B SaaS work. And I think, you know, my experience has been around really building strong foundations for those companies to really scale efficiently, which is very difficult. The more sellers you add, the harder it is to keep the same unit economics. It's been fun to understand the differences between the go to market. They all are very different, but just making sure that you set it up the right way for each company and just learning and being an operator, working closely with the leadership team, and making sure we hit our goals. It's been a fun journey, and recently it's been more around advising and coming in on board and being a fractional leader, which is something that I've always wanted to do. I feel like when you're in the role, it's like you go from moving the needle to keeping the lights on, what I call. Like, here, I feel like I'm kinda moving the needle every single time I go on a project, and it resonates with me. So it's been a fun transition.

Janis Zech: Okay. Great. And how did you end up at Revenue Operations? Sort of like, what is your professional journey? I mentioned that you doubled in finance for a bit. So curious to hear that part.

Jeremy Lamondet: Yep. Yeah. Just by luck, honestly. My first job out of college was — I was very lucky because a connection got me into a great opportunity working for a hedge fund for many years. I worked there for like six, seven years before I joined Goldman. I was the youngest employee working with all partners and building a lot of financial models. What I was doing, I was doing a lot of marketing decks, building the models together, then selling it to the clients, and then thinking about how do we onboard those clients after that? How do we optimize? So in a certain way, I was doing a lot of RevOps at the time because I was wearing so many different hats. And then when I joined Goldman, I realized, wow, they hire you to be an expert in one specific domain, and I got really bored really fast. That's when I started to run my own company. We raised a little bit of funding. We did this for a bit, and that's how I transitioned from finance into tech. Then from tech, I stumbled into those sales operation roles, and that's how I got in. To me, that was very interesting because if you think about sales operations, it's a lot about working cross functionally with a lot of different teams, being able to show the ROI. It's very difficult. Partnering with the leadership team around, this is why we're doing those things. This is why we're focusing not on ten different initiatives, but maybe we stick with three. This is where the ROI makes the most sense. When you think about quadrants around difficulties of putting things together versus how much you can get out of it, you want to be on the upper right corner. I think working in finance really helped me to understand what really drives the business. Every business has different top metrics, but being able to take those top metrics and understand how it is defined on the go to market strategies helped me ramp up faster and build those relationships to make sure we were all aligned. It was very helpful, it's still obviously very helpful to have this financial background. So yeah, stumbled into it, loved it because it's a combination of — you also want to be a bit of an entrepreneur when you think about sales ops because you're trying a lot of different things. I think my background in starting my own company, raising funding, trying different things always helped me because it's like you should never be satisfied in sales ops or RevOps. There is always more you can do, and it comes with what are we not doing, and also being very disciplined around not doing too many things, but what else can we do? And if the bar was there last quarter, can we get higher? Always still having this growth mindset around, is there more to squeeze, or are we capped? And sometimes this is what I've seen with some companies. They're doing really great on the opportunity stages. They're ninety percent conversion on every stage. You may not need to spend too much time there. Maybe it's more top of funnel, lead to opportunity, where there may be more juice to squeeze. So yeah, I think it was a combination of finance and being an entrepreneur that from a sales ops, RevOps perspective are great qualities because you want to partner with the sales leaders in marketing and customer success, but at the same time, a lot of the sales ops and RevOps teams — what I've seen at least — are more task takers. It's like there's just a lot of things that they're being asked to do, a lot of fires every day, and how do you remove the tactical and be more strategic and be able to say no? I think that's something that I've also learned throughout my career, not jumping on every single thing because at the end it burned me more than once. And so, yeah, that's a bit of the background there.

Janis Zech: Yeah. No. I think you're absolutely right, and I think if you look at LinkedIn, right, some of the hot discussion topics that you hear people talking about — definitely saying no is a big one, right? Learning how to say no, how to manage all the various stakeholders. RevOps, I think, also as a role is becoming more strategic in comparison to how we looked at sales operations. So like in the past, it's so much more like a strategic partner than it was maybe like ten, twenty years ago when sales operations really started to take off. So yeah, I think things are changing and I think it's good that they are and there is this emancipation of revenue operations. And I think our episode today sort of touches on that, the strategic part in particular. And so what we talked about in our prep call was to really make this episode about compensation planning, essentially. So how do you define quota? How do you define OTE, OTC? And I think that's a really interesting topic that actually, as part of RevOps Lab, we haven't touched on at all yet, and I actually also think this is a conversation that is happening too little at the moment on LinkedIn. There's very little talk about comp planning. It's very much, I would say, more in the hands of sales leadership. So just to get started with it, Jeremy, how are you thinking about the topic of comp planning? How did you get in touch with it? What is your overall take on it in general?

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. I think every time you join a new company, obviously compensation and quota setting is a big thing, especially in startups. Because if you think about the different stages, if you're a public company, your goals may not change that much. Maybe it's just once a year quota setting, you get a new comp plan, you sign it. Right? But as you go further down, like series A or B or even C, quota can change on you almost every quarter. Right? So how do you — it's been a topic where RevOps gets involved a lot. Right? You have to think about a lot of different variables from a top down, but also like a bottom up. So yeah, I think it's a great topic, especially given the environment. Right? When you think about sellers hitting quota these days, that's been coming down just in general. This is for both public and private companies. Used to be closer to the mid-50s, which was actually quite healthy, and now you're closer to forty percent on average, and some companies maybe even further down than that. What does that mean? Is it like we're setting quota too high and it's hitting the morale of the sellers? I think this is where it's interesting to take a step back, because I've been part of those companies where seller productivity — and what I mean by that is if you take their OTE, and let's say someone makes OTE, so on target earnings, which is a combination of their salary and commission. Usually for an account executive, a seller, it's usually around fifty-fifty, so one hundred thousand in base and one hundred thousand in commission. If someone makes around that two hundred thousand, the sales productivity based on where you are in the series — series A, B, C, or even public — it's anywhere between three to 5x. So you should go back and see, are they generating six hundred grand in revenue? Six hundred grand to one million revenue is kind of like your ballpark. It's a big ballpark, right? But that's the first thing that I look at every time I join a new company. Which series are they in? What's the sales productivity? Is it healthy or not healthy? I think that's a good start because if they're not hitting quota, okay, but sometimes I look at it and I'm like, whoa, the quota is like six, seven X, or sometimes it's even higher than this. So maybe we're asking way too much. That's a trend that I've seen, and sometimes on the other side of it, which is like, oh, we're doing great from a quota perspective, we're growing really fast, and then you look at the sales productivity and you're like, they're like two and a half to three X, and you're like, whoa, this is not good enough. But the thing is, maybe a year before they were at two X, and now they're at two and a half to three X, and they think it's really good. Just to take a step back, provide them with some of the insight and the metrics that I've seen, helps build the conversation around, this is the baseline, this is where we want to be, and build it from there.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Perfect. Okay. I think thinking about setting quota goals too high, right, I think very often I get the feeling that somebody in a company, maybe the CFO, maybe the board together with the CFO and the CEO, they get the idea, okay, this needs to be sort of like our next revenue goal that we hit in order to achieve, whatever, a new fundraising round or something like this. Based on that, the quota for our reps needs to be set. Just curious, like, do you think this is the right approach or how would you approach the topic of sketching quota? Because in the end, that's then also really defining OTE and the OTE attainment.

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. For sure. I mean, I think in the perfect world, people need to think about both sides. Right? The top down and the bottom up. Right? The top down is, we align with our investors that if we're, let's say, a hundred million this year and we want to jump to one hundred thirty by the end of the year, that's our investor goal or from the board's perspective, one hundred thirty. What does that mean from the sales side? There's usually a cushion that you put on top for the sell side. Do we do a ten percent, fifteen percent cushion on top of this? That's the first conversation. Maybe you go from one hundred thirty to be like, hey, our internal goals — I could have used better numbers, but it's like one hundred forty five for the sales team. That's the top down. Then you have to describe where RevOps comes in and think, is this even feasible? Do we have the right number of reps? What does the ramping look like? How long does it take to ramp and all of that? Does it match with our sales cycle? There's a lot of sales cycles, conversions, healthy pipeline. Does it essentially roll up to all the sellers that we have or future hires? I think if you spend the right amount of time and you can actually combine both, then I think you have the right formula. There is usually some gaps, and then this is where it gets interesting — if there is a gap, then there's a good conversation with the CFO. This is where CRO and CFO should be talking. RevOps gives insight to the CRO, and the CRO and CFO should really be communicating around the gaps. Maybe it's like we're missing headcount, or maybe the assumptions that we're making on the new hires are too high. I've seen that as well, right? Because that's another assumption that people make, especially as you ramp fast, that you take whatever sellers are doing today in terms of productivity, and you assume that every new hire will have the exact same productivity, which might be true for a while until you hit some sort of inflection point where it becomes too hard, conversions are not that high because you're essentially running a go to market strategy where there's a lot of low hanging fruit. Productivity is really high and gets better with RevOps coming in, better tech stack, better process, better training. Everything goes there, then you hit some plateau because now you're not going after the low hanging fruit. You're going after tier two and tier three. Thinking about all those things is important. But maybe there is one more piece around just compensation and quota that a lot of people are missing outside of just the goals. It's like, how do you actually set it up? Is your compensation design and what is your quota setting? We've talked a little bit about the quota setting, but compensation design is like, you start first with what is the OTE, or on target earnings, for each role across the board. Do you have the right benchmark? There's plenty of resources available for folks. You'll see even from first principles that you start with OTE, you could see two companies having very different OTE for product AEs, and they have the same motion. This is why it's important. That's also why some folks are jumping really fast. It's like, hey, I'm making one hundred fifty. This company is paying two hundred OTE. I'm doing the exact same thing. Why am I staying here? So being competitive on the first part, which is the OTE. The second part is OTE to OTC. So we talked about on target commission. Again, what is the benchmark? BDR, SDR versus AE versus account executive versus account managers on the post sales side? What are the ratios? Usually it's seventy-thirty on younger reps because they also need the income coming out of college, then you'd be a little bit more aggressive on the sellers, account executives, so it's usually fifty-fifty. On the account managers, account directors, it's usually fifty-fifty or sixty-forty. Sometimes you can see a little bit of difference, but understanding the nuance there. Then after you get to this, it's like, what are the variables? I think that's really important. What are the variables that are going to be tied to my incentives? This is where I see a lot of errors, a lot of mistakes where people are confused. Sellers, for the most part, can't even calculate their compensation off the top of their head, which is really bad. You should directionally know what your comp is going to be by the end of the month or by the end of the quarter. Most sellers won't be able to do it. And the reason for that is because it's too complicated. Over time, the sales teams or even the RevOps team, to be blamed here, have added more complexity. My advice to a lot of the companies is to keep it very simple. Yes, you can do a SPIFF once in a while because of new features on the product side that you want to really push and see how it fits. No issues with that. But keep the variables max to like three variables. Don't go over three variables. And then from a weight perspective, you need to at least have twenty percent weight. If you do five, ten percent weight on one variable, sellers are not going to care about it. Keep the weights at least at twenty percent, three variables max. Then from there, make sure that those variables are tying up to the company's objectives, because company's objectives sometimes change. We've seen a large shift with the zero interest rate period — grow at all costs, all about new business — to potentially being more around the NRR, so NRR, a combination of churn and expansion. How do you incentivize the right variables tied to the company goals? So that's really important and that's not something that has been done really well because it's usually like, this is what we've been doing, kind of like a response. So making sure as you change those goals, they're really tied to their incentives. That's kinda like on the comp plan. Any questions there?

Janis Zech: Yeah. It's just exactly — one thing I want to say, Jeremy, is just the variables. You mentioned you have maybe three variables to define. Can you give an example of what kind of variables you're thinking about there?

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. Of course. Let's say you're an account executive at a B2B SaaS company. You could have two variables, right? Maybe it's seventy percent new business and thirty percent expansion. What I mean by expansion is — it's always these weird swim lanes between account executives and account managers or customer success, depending on what the post sales looks like. Thirty percent on expansion is around when you convert or close a new business and for the first six to twelve months there is this overlap where you can actually be responsible for the expansion. That's an example where seventy percent is new business, or eighty percent is new business, twenty percent is expansion. I think that's an example where you make it simple enough. But then if you kind of double click into what does it mean in terms of my quota, right? What is now my quota? So my quota is, let's say, I'm at two hundred thousand OTE, and let's say the quota is like a million dollars, so like five times per AE, which is kind of high. You might be like series C or series D or even close to being public — per year, one million. Now, if I know that eighty percent is coming from new business, it's like, what are my commission rates? So my advice there as well is keep it simple. You don't necessarily need to do a lot of deceleration and acceleration. Keep it simple around maybe a commission rate that is below ten percent when you hit your goals, so it can be slightly discounted but not that much. Keep it flat. But then what are the accelerations? I've seen folks capping it a lot or adding deceleration at some point. Again, my advice or what I've seen that works well is there are essentially two thresholds. Anything above one hundred percent, you get 1.2x on your commission rates. Anything above one hundred twenty five percent, you get 1.2x from the prior threshold, so just keeping it simple. I think that's a nice incentive. Again, when you combine OTE, making sure you pay folks the right way, the ratios, OTE versus OTC, what is the quota that they're going to get paid on, what are the variables, and what are the commission rates — it's complicated, but don't overengineer. Folks should know off the top of their head how to calculate it. The last piece I will mention is if they don't know, a lot of companies are missing out on the ability to give them even an Excel or Google Sheet where they could actually do it on their own. That's another piece where I will definitely advise them to build something for the reps. I've definitely been at a company where compensation was changed a couple of times, which essentially led to sellers leaving the company. I think there is a lot in it. It's like a way to attract talent. It's a way to get rid of talent. Sometimes it's also on purpose to get rid of talent, but that does happen. But of course, if you are on a stable trajectory, making drastic changes to the compensation plan for your sellers can actually lead to completely destabilizing your company and your organization.

Janis Zech: On that note, I'm curious how you think about how often should a revenue organization actually go through the process of redefining. When do you know, okay, now is a good time to reconsider how compensation should be structured?

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. Great question. And what I would say on folks leaving — the philosophy is as a seller, your role should get easier over time. Right? You've built your pipeline. You know the business, the ins and outs. Right? It should get easier. That's how you retain talent. If you keep changing the goals on them, that's when you're missing out because they are going to leave and they are going to jump to another company. To go back to your question around how often should you reset quota, again, it depends on where you are in your maturity. Series A companies or pre-seed, right, they are starting new motions from the ground up, so they don't know what great looks like yet. They may have goals that change month over month. Sometimes I build plans where we had no idea — we know from a sales productivity perspective where we should get, but we don't know what the inputs to outputs recipe looks like. So we can't even coach them around, you need to do X in order to get Y. Maybe at the beginning it's around lead generation, essentially — what are the activities that lead to generating revenue? Sometimes at the beginning, you may even just track some sort of inputs for just a month or two months to get into it, but that's very early on. That's an extreme scenario where you just pay them on inputs, you just see what the outputs are, and over time you change it. Generally speaking, I would say for series A, B, depending also on sales cycle because if it's a long sales cycle, it might be difficult to change the goals too often. I would say for high velocity motion, so SMB, mid market, changing the plan every quarter is something that is pretty normal because you're learning. Sometimes even month over month if you're already series A or even B, you're learning, you see the pipeline, and you're changing a bit of the goal. Obviously it shouldn't be too drastic. Month over month, if your goal was to generate X, you don't go from X to like 1.5X. Right? You may go from X to 1.1 or 1.2, and sometimes you overshoot, and so you go down by 0.9X. Right? That's why you start learning the whole motion, the pipeline, and start forecasting for the full year. Again, changing plans multiple months or quarterly for early stage companies is something that I've experienced quite a bit. As you go into more mature companies with longer sales cycles, that's when the plan changes either semi-annually or just once a year. They sign it for the year. That's their comp. It's a stable business. They know exactly how many sales they need. They know what the pipeline looks like, they don't retouch it that often.

Janis Zech: Makes sense. Also, I think it also adds a lot of stress to your people. If you're a stable business, do you really want to do that? How often is it really necessary? What types of data or information — you mentioned a few things — do you actually need to engage in that kind of replanning of the compensation? Sort of like if I think about it, pipeline coverage obviously feels relevant, sort of like the stage conversion rates, leads to opportunity conversion, ACV. These are all things that come to mind. How do you think about it? Am I on the right track here or should I add a few more KPIs or metrics?

Jeremy Lamondet: There's always more to add. I think, again, it depends on the trajectory of the business. So for example, if you are hiring new folks, that's where the complexity comes in around when do we hire them? How do we stack those classes? Should we assume the same productivity from the prior class? How long can you sustain this? It's difficult. Sometimes you don't know until you hit that tier one to tier two accounts, right, when conversions start dipping and you're not getting the same productivity. All macro environments come in, right? There's not as many leads coming in, and so that's a piece where you didn't necessarily plan for it. So now it's like you don't have enough leads for the entire sales team, either on the marketing side because it's too expensive or we cut the budget. All of those things are tied together. It's been less resources available or less budget, so how does it impact your sellers if you still have the same number of sellers? Sometimes, like you said, you may need to make some adjustment on the headcount, but then the quota doesn't change. That's also why a lot of the time you see that dip. It's going down. Essentially, it's not apples to apples. They may keep the same conversion rates, but they just don't have enough pipeline. I think that's something relevant here — we talked about the compensation design with all of the variables that I've mentioned earlier, but from a quota setting perspective, we did talk about the goals from the board side, then at the exec side, and how do we do the cushion on the sales team. One of the things that I've seen over and over is that usually the quota — they think about what was the quota last year, and then they're like, okay, well, if last year was X, this year is going to be 1.1X. It's what they call the last year plus. There's not enough that went into the conversation and went into digging in terms of what the pipeline looks like. Everything that you mentioned earlier — are the conversions the same? Is the sales cycle the same? Do we have the same number of sellers? Are those things similar? Because again, if they're similar from a year ago and you expect now a 1.1X, that's when your overall attainment comes down. I mean, it's not rocket science, but there's obviously a lot of variables that come in. I think it really comes down to RevOps being the bread of the operation. They know the ins and outs of what's happening in their pipeline. It's for RevOps to be able to communicate that to the CRO. Right? So that the CRO can actually have a very strong conversation with the CFO around why the goal should be different. Right? Because it's usually driven from board to CFO to CRO, but there's usually a lack of pushback on the revenue side around, hey, we can hit those goals. Or the CRO comes to the head of sales and says, this is your goal. The RevOps team did their job and really explained why this is not attainable. Right? And so that's one thing that maybe gets missed as part of all of this conversation.

Janis Zech: I think it's such a great point and also very important. And I mean, if the CRO — if you were a sales leader and you manage a team of sellers, new business, USA, East Coast, something like that, and the CRO comes to you and tells you this is your quota, right? As a sales leader, how hard are you going to push back? Right? It's very tough.

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. It usually doesn't happen. I've seen it happening where the CRO tells the numbers, but it's like, did the CRO have the conversation with RevOps and the head of sales? Does the CRO have all of the insights required to make that call? If that's the case, then it's really kind of like, okay, we know what we're going into. But again, it's also not fair for all the sellers because again, it's like their role should be getting easier and it's not, and when you think through the attainment, they're not hitting quota, they're not happy, and what ends up happening is retaining talent is getting harder and harder. So now it's this vicious circle. Now folks are leaving, moving to another company, and you see this happening a lot more often than it's ever happened, where people are moving. Now it's like, I have to hire someone else, which is also very hard because they're probably not going to get the same productivity as my best sellers that have left.

Janis Zech: One hundred percent, right? Especially in this economy, you really want to make sure that you have these opportunities to upsell, to cross sell on the existing business and probably your existing sellers are well equipped for that because they know the product and they know the accounts. One thing I want to kind of double down on also here is just for our listeners — I think this is also a good topic to actually just be proactive on. This is not about buying a new tool. This is not about implementing super complicated processes in your CRM and super operational stuff. This is about collecting the right data points and then making a case to the CRO with something very objective, and I think RevOps can have that role as a very objective voice because they are themselves often not quota carrying, so they actually can come in and say, hey, look, this is our pipeline and we have too much pipeline actually and we don't have enough sellers, or we don't have enough pipeline for the sellers that we currently have — whatever the conversation is going to be, whatever the numbers are going to tell you. This is such a good topic to be proactive on and I'm pretty sure your CRO will not be angry at you for taking that topic, but they will thank you for preparing it. I think it's such an important topic to really at least try to own a part of it from a RevOps perspective.

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. Exactly. RevOps should be unbiased to any of those analyses. It's like, this is what's happening on the ground, and being able to, like you said, be proactive. One of the reasons why they're not being proactive, and we've talked about it a little earlier, is that RevOps is becoming too tactical. It's just like, hey, there are all those things happening in the CRM. They just don't have the bandwidth to take a step back and own some of those things. But it's so important because if you can actually push back on some of those things when it comes to quota setting and have all the right measurements to show why from the bottom up it doesn't make sense, the head of sales and marketing will thank you for this, because you're doing something that they know in the back of their head is just not feasible, but you're actually putting it together and presenting it to the CRO and really pushing back, again, without being biased. I think you're doing it for the business and you're doing it for the sellers. And if you do this, again, you'll have higher attainment, which is also something when you think about quota setting — something that I haven't touched on is how do you set the right quota? What is a good quota? I think it varies from company to company. What I've seen is that a quota sitting with fifty percent of your reps hitting quota and eighty percent of your reps hitting at least eighty percent is a really good benchmark because you're retaining folks, achievers, and it keeps it competitive. Anything where you have more sellers hitting quota than fifty percent, maybe your quota is a little too low and you may want to increase it. Anything where we're seeing forty percent or thirty percent, that probably means that your quota is a bit too high based on the performance, right? Then it creates what we talked about. We don't ever need to go very deep around all the measurements and the commission rates and all these things, but what is your framework when it comes to the compensation design and the quota setting that you can always go back to pretty much at any company and apply it? That's the reason why it's great we talk about this, because I went from one company to another company. I can tell you none of those companies had anywhere close to what I'm talking about. They all had their own variation with so many different roles. Folks don't know how to calculate their comp. Those things should be super straightforward. There's a lot of helpful advisors and companies on commissions that are doing a good job around showing them what good looks like, but many companies are just like, oh, the sales manager started the comp plan and here, five years in, you've added a ton of complexity. I think it's good to take a step back from, okay, how do I design it? What makes sense for the business? Is this aligned with industry practice? And I think if you can tie all of this together, you may be on the right path.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Okay. I think, Jeremy, that's a great point also to end on. Just for our listeners, I want to mention if you're interested in how OTE looks like for a huge amount of companies, then definitely check out Repvue dot com. That's R E P V U E dot com. We're not affiliated with them at all, but it's super interesting to look at sort of like the attainment of companies like HubSpot, Salesforce. So HubSpot is around a little bit higher than forty percent. Salesforce at the moment, a little bit less than forty percent. And then there are some outliers where they have attainment like seventy, eighty percent at the moment. Those are some crazy companies, but it's just a good platform to look at because you see sort of like OTE, but you also see OTE attainment. This gives you a much better idea of, not only from a seller perspective but also from a RevOps perspective, what companies are doing well at the moment and which companies have a good idea of how to build their sales motion. And also for a longer amount of time because Repvue tracks that over the years, so you see which companies are more or less stable and which companies have crazy hiccups. Just a general recommendation to check out Repvue dot com. Jeremy, one question we always ask our guests on this show is looking back at your career, what advice would you give your younger self or someone just starting out?

Jeremy Lamondet: Yeah. One thing that I've had the luxury of over the past few months is to have the right headspace to actually continue to learn what's happening in the B2B SaaS world. There's so many great tools out there that I'm learning myself. Like, how do you actually do prompt engineering? How do you build your own custom GPT? Things that I never had the chance to do that I really enjoyed and I think will pay off as you think about the new AI wave — knowing how to prompt it well, and tweaking it and becoming more of an engineer, which I always wanted to do and never had the skills, but now I can actually use my existing skills and become better at it. What I would say is continue to learn, continue to seek advice and mentorship. I think it will really pay off and provides you with a holistic view around what's out there. Maybe there might be a different function or a different role, different company that you might be interested in, maybe it's a mission somewhere. I think just being curious and learning and continuing to grow is something that I wish I would have known ten years ago, and not getting too stuck into one thing and just always learning and going out to events, conferences, learning even just online.