Managing Boundary-Busting Teams

Managing hybrid teams, where some of us are in person and others at home, takes a special kind of finesse. How do we build teams that make the most of being hybrid, and how do we keep pulling in the same direction… even when we’re not in the same space?

Our guest this episode is Jana Raver. As the E. Marie Shantz Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Smith School of Business, with a cross-appointment to the Department of Psychology at Queen’s University, Dr. Raver spends considerable time thinking about interpersonal dynamics and the ways we work together in teams. She has a particular interest in examining how employees build and sustain high-performance teams versus undermining each other. She is joined in conversation by host Meredith Dault.

This episode cites the following research:

Kreamer et al; Optimizing Virtual Team Meetings: Attendee and Leader Perspectives, American Journal of Health Promotion 35(5)

Transcript:

Meredith Dault: Teamwork. Love it or hate it, working together with other people is how we get things done. Think about it. Nobody could scale Mount Everest on their own, perform open heart surgery on their own, or even lift the Stanley Cup without the help of a whole bunch of other people. But teamwork can be tough-- all those meetings, all that miscommunication. Throw in the challenges of a hybrid work environment and, well, there can be challenges.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

So welcome to TEAMS Work or Team's Work or Teamwork. OK, so we haven't nailed down the pronunciation. But I can tell you this. With this series, we are going to be digging into the joys and struggles of making things happen together with other people. I'm your host, Meredith Dault. And I'll be introducing you to a bunch of smart people from the Smith School of Business community, hearing about academic research and from practitioners who give you tips and tricks for making life better when you're part of a team.

[MUSIC- BEN AUXIER, BRIAN HUTHER, "YOU'RE ON MUTE"]

(SINGING) You're on mute. And I can't tell every single thing you said. I want to catch every correction, but we have a bad connection. A bad connection. You're on mute.

01.30. MD: That's You're on Mute from 2020 The Musical. It's by Ben Auxier and Brian Huther of Friend Dog Studios. And you can find it on YouTube. Anyone who has ever sat through an online meeting will be very familiar with that expression, you're on mute.

It's now so ubiquitous that it is even spawned a party game of the same name where players try to guess words while you mouth them. Now that we work in a hybrid world, you're on mute is just part of our lexicon. But managing teamwork in a world where some of us are in person and some of us are at home takes a special kind of finesse.

In fact, a recent article in The Economist suggests that hybrid work gives us the worst of both worlds. For one thing, we get a lot less opportunity for in-person socializing and for a spontaneous idea generating. While some suggest that remote work is more productive, others disagree, arguing that bridging the in-person on screen gap is just one more hurdle to getting things done.

Well, today on TEAMS Work, we are looking at how to manage boundary busting teams, how to build teams that will make the most of being hybrid, and how to keep your whole team pulling in the same direction even when you aren't in the same space. Jana Raver knows a thing or two about teamwork. As the E. Marie Shantz professor of organizational behavior at Smith School of Business and with across appointment to the Department of Psychology at Queen's, she has spent a lot of time thinking about interpersonal dynamics and the ways we work together in teams.

She has a particular interest in looking at how employees build and sustain high performance teams versus undermining each other in teams. I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Raver about making the most of hybrid or cross-functional teams. Here's our conversation. Hi, Jana. Thanks for being here today.

Jana Raver: Hi, Meredith. Thanks for having me.

03.36. MD: So here we are. We're heading into the latter part of 2022, and we're accepting to some degree that hybrid work is going to be part of our lives. Zoom meetings are here to stay. And more of us than ever seem to be working in this hybrid capacity, partly at work, partly at home, somewhere in between. How are we doing? How is this working for us so far?

JR: I'd say it's definitely better. We're on a bit of an upswing. A few months ago, there was a lot of a concern of how we're going to do this. Coming out of the pandemic, there's a tremendous fatigue. And, I think, people now are starting to say, OK, look there really is an upside. There's a lot we've learned during the pandemic about how to do virtual work and collaboration effectively and how not to do it. And people are starting to get the message of, OK, we can actually live in two worlds simultaneously and do it successfully for collaboration. So I'm seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

MD: OK, so in terms of productivity, can you speak specifically to that? Are we more productive, less productive? We've been hearing a lot of things, like, oh, you're less productive at home. No, you're more productive at home. Do we know how we're doing?

JR: Yeah, this has been tracked by a number of consulting firms and even Microsoft throughout the pandemic. The results do show pretty consistently that people are at least self reporting to higher productivity. And also managers are reporting higher productivity for their teams. So from a business perspective, they're actually seeing that their teams were able to not be impaired by the individual work at home but actually in many cases increase their effectiveness.

MD: OK. So that's individual remote work?

JR: Yeah.

05.10. MD: Now, what about the question of teamwork? How are we doing in that department?

JR: And that's where it's a little tricky. So individuals being productive they were able to meet their targets really, really well. When it comes to team collaboration, that's where we're seeing a little bit more of a challenge. What we've seen throughout the pandemic is that people have gotten more of an individual focus time as in terms of their individual productivity. But team collaboration has faltered.

MD: OK. So is that-- I mean, why is that?

JR: In many ways, it's just much harder to be able to get everybody together and engage. I mean, if you think about when you're having a discussion, it flows naturally when you're in a room together. You can read people's interpersonal cues. We also have issues with trust. So virtual teams we know tend to not trust each other as much as face to face teams. And so when we have a situation where people have had to work extended periods of time without really having social time together, interpersonal bonding, a lot of these rapport cues that we get when we're around each other, then people start to self silence a little bit more. They tend not to feel as safe speaking up. And so the collaboration with others can be negatively affected because of that.

MD: OK. So how has the return-- how has the hybrid situation changed that at all?

JR: And that's where I'm actually starting to see some of the upswing. So what we know for many years of doing work on hybrid teams, some even multinational teams that don't get to see each other regularly is that if they're able to have intense periods of collaboration where they do get together and they have these retreats or strategy meetings or in-depth working sessions or hackathons, whatever you call them, where people come together and collaborate. They go to meals. They are able to read each other and build that trust. That will then sustain them for a period of time where they can go work individually. As people are starting to come back hybrid and they're getting those more intense face to face interactions, some of that trust is coming back and some of the smoothness of human interaction and collaboration is starting to come back. And that's what we need to be able to continue to have but without giving up the benefit of individual productivity that we actually got during the pandemic.

07.18. MD: OK, interesting. I have so many questions because partly it makes me think, well, what should employers be doing when they've got all the bodies in the office at the same time? Maybe they should be using that time well. However, I do know a lot of workplaces where only some of the bodies are in some of the days. And so you never have everybody in together. And so doesn't that set up some strange tensions?

JR: Yeah, absolutely. So this is one of the better practices. If you're going to be able to have-- if you need-- if you have team collaboration, if you've got these intensive team tasks where you do need complexity of decision making, a lot of team brainstorming, a strategic planning meeting, and something that requires a lot of ideas on the table where lots of people are bouncing ideas off of each other and we're all getting on the same page about something, it's best to do that face to face. For these higher complex tasks, it really is a good idea to try to get everyone in. And that might be a retreat that might be a special-- some teams it's once a week. We all come together. Some teams it's once a month. Some teams it's several days a week. But those higher complexity tasks are better done face to face. And so when you do have teams where you've got some people at home, some people at a distance, it tends not to work as effectively.

MD: OK. And then I think that we've read about or thinking about this notion of distance bias. I think is the issue, right? So can you get into positions where some people are perceived to be being more participatory or something along those lines?

JR: Yeah, so this distancing bias has comes actually from years of sociology research showing that when people are no longer physically present, they're not proximal to you. And so you don't see them on a regular basis. Like, for example, if you have a core group or a subgroup of people who are in the office every day and then people who work at a distance and it's always the same people who work at a distance, what we would expect to see, and the research does support it, is that those people will start to get sidelined. They get sidelined from conversations. They get sidelined from promotions. They get sidelined from influencing the team if they're not regularly there where the rest of the team is. So they fall prey to the distance bias where we start to think of them as, oh, that's like the other people. And that is the danger of staying remote when the rest of your team is in.

MD: Uh-huh. So how do you counter that?

JR: Ideally, what you want to try to do is get people together for the face to face like I talked about where you actually have those rich high complexity tasks that we work on collaboratively together and make sure people are in. Other than that, when you're on your regular routine work where you're kind of executing the work, people are just going about their normal tasks, you want to make sure that ideally everyone has the chance to come and go. We interplay between some people are at work, some people are at home. And so long as it is regular exchange where it's normal for us to be hybrid, it's normal for people to be virtual. It's normal to be in the office. And it's, OK, especially even as a leader that you sometimes lead from a remote position sometimes and you also do what you can in order to facilitate conversations to ensure everyone is included. This can actually become quite normal for the execution of the project, the ongoing work to be done to maintain that so long as you're actively bridging all of those differences to break down that distancing bias.

10.26. MD: OK. I've actually noticed a really funny thing that happens in our team meetings where the people in the room actually turn. And all of us address the screen. Even if there are fewer people in the screen than there are in the room, we end up with this really interesting-- makes me feel like we're on a sci-fi movie, and you're sort of talking to the large men on the screen. So I've noticed that thing happen where we actually stop addressing each other in the room, and we're actually talking more to the people who are remote. So I guess it depends on the setup that you're using.

JR: In some ways, that's a better problem than the traditional problem, which is-- a lot of places that would just put the laptop on the table and ignore it. And often the virtual participants would then have people with their backs to them. And they couldn't see what was going on. They couldn't hear what was going on. And I do hear there's a lot of places where that's still happening. So in a perfect world, what you've got is a meeting where the attendees who are virtual are sitting around the table. It's kind of a U-shaped table, if you will, and everybody is sitting around the table the same as everybody else.

MD: Right. So that screen has a place at the table and isn't just sort of afterthought.

JR: Exactly.

11.32. MD: Aha. OK. So we are doing that part pretty well in our unit. And what about the question of the isolation issues that can come into play or the miscommunication issues that can happen when people aren't working together all the time?

JR: Yeah. And this depends upon your work context. We've had two huge problems during the pandemic. One trend has been the over managing everybody and keeping everybody too engaged. And so we've got a lot of organizations that have taken that tack of ongoing meetings and lots and lots of meetings and constantly overwhelming people in that way.

So some organizations have fallen prey to that bias. The flip side of that is some organizations have fallen prey to the bias of just letting people do their own thing and not engaging enough. And that's the isolation problem where people start feeling the loneliness and the disengagement from their team. They don't really know what's going on. They have either too little information. They have lost the shared purpose of why do I even work for this organization? They might feel like their boss doesn't care about what they're doing anymore. And so then and people caught in that situation start to really truly feel the loneliness. And honestly, they're looking for other work.

MD: And we are seeing a lot of that, I suppose. But then, I guess, the freedom of working from home means you can kind of-- the whole world is open to you.

JR: Exactly.

MD: And there's so many places that are recruiting remotely right now too.

JR: Of course.

MD: I don't know. Extroverts like me, though, I got to tell you that sitting home alone in my little dining room table does not work for me. So I like to be in person.

JR: A lot of extroverts have been thrilled with the idea of going back. And then the introverts are hesitant to say the least.

13.09. MD: Yeah, although, my dog's not too thrilled with my decision to go back to work. Are there any positives-- one point earlier today we were talking about the notion of loneliness and the positive sides of solitude. Do you want to dig into that idea little bit more because, yeah, I mean it doesn't all have to be bad being alone and being forced to work on your own team alone-- sorry-- with your own content to contribute to your team. Do you want to speak to that a bit?

JR: Yeah, it's one of the things that, I think, has been-- has intrigued me a lot during the pandemic is that productivity has either stayed the same or gone up. And people digging into that have been wondering, OK, how could that possibly be?

And some of it is that for those people who haven't been completely overwhelmed by meetings, where they're not being micromanaged too much, they found this happy medium of being able to engage when necessary. But then also have these pulse moments of focus that they've never had before that when you're actually at home in your own space and you're comfortable and you're not being interrupted or bothered by various sounds or other people dropping by your office, you get a level of focus and productivity that is really unique and different. And that positive side of solitude is something that I'm really intrigued by. And all the introverts out there are saying, well, yes, I've been saying this for years.

No one would leave me alone at work. And the idea that you can actually get those pulses throughout your day or throughout your week of concentrated time-- we might not have had that in the face to face office, but we can have that when we're working alone.

MD: So the important thing is, though, to have those moments where you bring that work that you've generated and bring it back to the team?

JR: Exactly.

14.53. MD: OK. So that allows the team to thrive. Earlier this year, The Harvard Business Review published a provocative article. And it was called Do We Still Need Teams? Thinking, of course, of the post-pandemic world. So I want to put that question to you. You don't have to have read the article. But do we still need teams at all? Maybe we're all just fine working at home, having our zen productivity and not having to bother with coming together.

JR: Yeah, it's an interesting and provocative idea for sure. I think the challenge there is that the nature of the work that people have to do we're in a knowledge era, so we're doing more complex collaborative knowledge work. And one person alone can't make all the decisions that are going to be effective for making companies very effective.

So if you have only one perspective, if you have one leader who is directing the team to do this, this, this, and this, that's great if you're in the early 1900s on an assembly line, and there's only one way to do the work. But in an era where we need different perspectives, in an era of diversity and era of incredible complexity of markets of needing many different perspectives in order to effectively solve our business challenges, we can't rely upon just one person, this person at the top who's telling everybody what to do, and they're just executing the work.

So we do need the teams to come together. We need this complexity of different perspectives and the integration. When we talk about-- teams have-- teams are really, really good for divergent thinking. And then we have to converge the thinking to come to a consensus in terms of decisions and directions. But, I think, it'd be a very sad day if we go to an organization where we no longer have collaborative communities for divergent thinking where we can then converge upon decisions that tackle the complex problems we have.

16.43. MD: Right. I think about this in the context maybe of gig workers and freelancers because we're seeing more and more of that kind of work, right? Never mind. We're not going to hire a new staffer. We'll just use freelancers out there in the world. But are we losing something when we do that in terms of the cohesive team, working together on something?

JR: Yeah, I think, so much of it comes back to the nature of the problem you're trying to solve. I mean, there are for sure jobs that are more individual contributor roles. And you don't have to necessarily contribute to a larger team.
But if everything is simply just broken down to an individual role, then what we end up with is silos and people who don't speak to each other. That ends up with redundancy. It ends up with trying to split your energy in multiple different directions. And sometimes that ultimately results in just really poor quality work.

17.30. MD: Yeah, fair. Another study I want to put to you. This one was published in Nature a few months ago. And it found that in-person teams generated more ideas than remote teams working on the same problem. So can we presume that hybrid teams would face similar challenges to those remote teams, or does this hearken back to what you were saying earlier about needing those intense work together moments?

JR: Yeah. I think, it's definitely-- brainstorming is one of those more complex tasks. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that teams do this more effectively face to face where they come up with more divergent ideas. It's basically people coming off and riffing off ideas together.

There is a caveat to that in that what we don't generally want to see it's called brain writing where people individually get some individual productivity time in order to think divergently.  But then when you come together, you can actually add to that even more. So if you prepare for these types of meetings by virtue of doing your individual brainstorming, you get people together face to face. They can read nonverbals. They can read facial expressions. Communication is much faster.

You don't have to wait for those weird awkward silences like you do in virtual meetings where people are talking over, and then everyone's kind of on silent. And then you've got to come off mute in order to speak. So just the flow of information exchange is much better face to face. And so it makes total sense the findings there that teams are going to have a richer divergent thinking experience and come up with better ideas when they are face to face.

MD: But the suggestion that people do in a brainstorm context do that work up front and then come together, that's a different way of thinking then just put everyone in a white room with a bunch of whiteboards and, like, have at it. Because I would think it would generate different kinds of results.

JR: Yeah. Exactly in brainstorming research, what we know is that when people only brainstorm in a group-- if I sit you down and say, OK, everybody brainstorm together, what ends up happening is the pace at which we think is actually much slower than the pace at which people talk and also the flow of communication.
So I might have two or three or four great ideas that if I just have a few minutes to get them down on paper before we start discussing, then I'll actually remember and retain those ideas versus when everyone puts out-- one maybe extroverted person puts forward an idea. The introverts start to self-censor. And then they never get around to sharing their ideas.

19.52. MD: Mhm. Oh, dear. OK. Yeah. So that does sound like a good solution. So can we talk a bit then-- I mean, over the years, we've heard about businesses trying to make themselves more attractive to workers by offering all sorts of in-person perks-- kombucha on tap, hot meals, ping pong, things that are meant to keep the worker working longer but giving them things that make the workplace more comfortable or enjoyable.
Those things seem to be irrelevant in the era of hybrid or remote working. Or are they? I mean, does any of this still necessary?

JR: I think if anything, it's more relevant because employers need to think about why people would bother to get dressed in the morning, put on your makeup or your heels or whatever, commute for an hour in many cases in order to go to a workplace that-- they might be sitting there on Zoom all day. Why would they do that? And so there needs to actually be more of an intentional focus on building a physical environment and also an organizational culture environment that is welcoming and that people want to go to.

MD: Interesting. OK. So what's the best way to do that?

JR: Think about organizations that the physical workplace is really a culture place, that it's really very much a place in which we emphasize and encourage the spontaneous hallway conversations that we do have a tea center and our coffee center or a someplace that people do hang out. There's lunchrooms. Because think about it.

If we're going to have the collaboration and the individual productivity time, it makes perfect sense that when we're in the office, we are actually taking more time out of our productivity days in order to actually collaborate. And that collaboration is facilitated by social spaces-- our trust building, our ongoing-- breaking down of silos by networking across different areas. All of that is facilitated by having social spaces in which people feel like they can informally connect and actually do the work, which is actually a huge part of the organizational culture.

21.25. MD: Right, of course. So for final thoughts, do you-- I mean, do you have any advice or recommendations for employees to be better team players in hybrid or remote work environments that we could-- listeners could take away with them?

JR: Yeah, it's a good question. I think as individuals, there's two parts to it. I think we have to engage fully and collaborate when-- and know that it's good for us to collaborate. That doesn't mean you sit in meetings constantly and you do nothing but spend your time completely inundated by meetings. But, I think, what I've seen and many of us have done ourselves and been guilty of throughout the pandemic is that we're always splitting our energy. It's like when I'm in the team meeting, I'm not really wanting to be there. I'm actually working on my individual work. And I'm not really present. And so if you do attend these team meetings, attend them fully. Put the work away. Be fully in the moment for that team meeting and actually fully engaged.

MD: Cameras on?

JR: Cameras on. Cameras on. Be engaged. But this is also a lesson for leaders out there that you need to make it worth it, worth people's time and energy to be there. So we shouldn't be doing hours upon hours upon hours of meetings. Cut back the meetings so that people can engage fully for those times. And then the flip side of that is then when you're not collaborating, it's OK. Disconnect. Put the red light. Do not disturb on and let people know. I know now is my individual productivity time. But doing that, constantly trying to do both, it's continuous partial attention. It's not good for anything. It's not good for the team. It's not for your individual-- good for your individual productivity. So it's actually better to fully engage in the collaboration, walk away fully engage in your individual productivity.

23.33. MD: OK. And then advice for organizations or for managers on especially managing those remote, hybrid, in person? Uh, where is everybody? Like, how do you-- any advice for them?

JR: Yeah. I think the same thing in terms-- if you're back in the office, do what you can to get people together for the in-person place engagements occasionally. And I don't know what that-- occasionally, it's different for every team depending upon what the nature of the work is, but it's worth it to get people together. But then also simultaneously reduce the demands on the constant touching base kind of summarizing kind of meetings that are really not necessary. So respect people's individual productivity by also cutting back on the meetings and the demands on their time so that they can be productive and then come back together.

As a manager, you actually then need to also make sure that you're touching base with employees more than you probably thought you should. It is more of a demand on managers to be more of a coach, to be reaching out. That doesn't have to be formal meetings. That can be quick messaging. "Hey, how's it going? Anything you need from me today? Is there anything you need to tell me about? Hey, how did the day go?" And also these little moments of positivity as well. "Hey, thinking about you did a great job on that presentation." Have these ongoing pulses of positivity engagement to make them feel like they're still part of the organization is really crucial.

25.01. MD: Yeah. Well, that makes perfect sense. OK, we're all going to go away and practice all of these and be so much more productive. Do you think the future is looking, in your opinion, kind of continued in this hybrid remote way, or do you imagine a time where we're all back in the office? Or is this a new dawn and we're never doing that again?

JR: I don't think it's going anywhere. All of the surveys are telling us that employees don't want it to go anywhere. They don't want to go back to the workplace, going through this log of the commute every single day. They want the flexibility.
I think we got some-- we weren't asking for a pandemic, but we got some gifts from the pandemic that we want to maintain. We like some of the flexibility and the comfort of our own homes. But we also want the possibility of going to the workplace some more than others. So it's not going anywhere.

25.49. MD: It depends on how many small children we have underfoot maybe or pets. OK. Well, that's fantastic. Are there any final thoughts you want to share with our listeners around the notion of teams, the future of teams?

JR: Yeah. I think just the virtual work is something that, I think, we've all come to get much more comfortable with. And if anything, there's been a lot of fear about what is hybrid work and the worries about how we're going to do this. I look back to where we were in early 2020. And people are like, oh, my gosh. We're not going to be able to do this. The world is-- the sky is falling. And within a few months we had it. And, I think, that's where we are with hybrid work as well where people are on the cusp of actually figuring out the best of both worlds and rather than it being a problem that we need to solve, embrace it as an opportunity for how we can actually free up people to have the energy and the attention of the resources, to be able to do their work fully but then collaborate fully as well.

MD: Right, that sounds like an exciting possible world.

JR: That's one I'd love to be able to continue to contribute to.

MD: Thanks. That's so great, Jana. Thanks so much for being with us today.

JR: Thank you for having me.

26.59. MD: As Dr. Raver mentioned earlier, hybrid teams can be uniquely challenging. And one of the biggest challenges is holding effective team meetings. We now all know about Zoom fatigue and multitasking. But how do we manage these meetings better?

Here is Smith Business Insights Alan Morantz with a few answers.

Alan Moranz: It's not hard to imagine that virtual meetings in the foreseeable future will look nothing like today's virtual meetings. I bet we'll be showing up in our team's slice of the metaverse as Day-Glo avatars. But right now, we have team meetings to conduct in our own virtual universe. So what can we do to manage them better?

Researchers have been studying the science of meetings for the past 20 years, but it's only recently that they've dug deep into virtual meetings. One thing they've learned is that many of the frustrations that participants in video conferences experience are the same as those experienced in in-person meetings-- late starts, lack of an agenda, drawn out meetings, late arriving participants. These are all issues that have been shown years ago to dampen meeting effectiveness.

There are certainly unique issues relating to video conference meetings. Studies have shown that people attending Zoom or Team sessions seem less motivated to engage both behaviorally and cognitively than when meeting face to face. Part of that is due to the technology platform but another part is due to participants confusion about how to use the technology. Not only the technical aspects, but the social aspects as well.

So how can meeting leaders optimize working Zoom or Team sessions? Liana Kramer and her colleagues at University of North Carolina launched the study in the summer of 2020 that involved both leaders and attendees of virtual team meetings. The study identified seven team leadership behaviors that both leaders and attendees agreed were most effective. Here's what they came up with.

One, prepare thoughtfully. This involves a clear, concise, pre-shared agenda and meeting goal, which is restated at the top of the meeting and a carefully considered attendee list.

Two, assign roles. Examples would be enlisting a colleague to help with logistics or to take notes.

Three, leverage technology tools such as whiteboards, polls, crediting charts, and breakout rooms.

Four, set expectations. Is it OK to turn off video or audio when not directly participating in discussion? Can I snack on camera?

Five, actively facilitate. This involves ensuring full engagement by asking to hear from those who are quiet and by focusing on the meeting goals.

Six, incorporate personal connections. Spend time talking to employees as people. Try to understand their challenges and struggles. This may seem like a frill, but it really is crucial. A recent study by an international team of researchers showed that including socially interactive components in virtual meetings can curb loneliness for employees feeling isolated.

And seven, end with clarity. Identify next steps and the people responsible for them. Agree on timelines and align around the key priorities.

Now, the researchers point out that it's not only on team leaders to make these sessions more productive. There should be an organization wide commitment to ensure everyone knows how to use the video conferencing program features and understands the social norms. That seems like good advice.

We spend so much of our time as teams huddled in meetings. It's time we take a mindful approach rather than leaving them to chance. I'm Alan Morantz. And I've just shown you the evidence.

20.58. MD: And that's the show. I want to thank my colleagues Alan Morantz, Julia Lefebvre and Iryna Vivchar for their behind the scenes support in putting this episode together. Along with editing support from Bill Cassidy and technical support from Andrew Johnson. If you want more insights for business leaders, check out Smith Business Insight at smith.queensu.ca/insight.

[MUSIC PLAYING]