Sunday, August 27, 2017

Writing Your Own User Manual May Help You and Your Co-Workers

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on...................."

Note: Thoughts and good wishes to all those suffering from, and negatively impacted by, Hurricane Harvey.  I hope relief and support are on the way, and that the losses are minimal.  

Conventional wisdom suggests that relationships take time to develop.  To truly get to know someone takes involvement with that person in myriad different circumstances, on varying levels. If it takes 10,000 hours to develop expertise as a professional in a given area, then it likely takes 1,000 hours or more to know a co-worker or colleague well enough and how they function (what their values are, what their approach to the workplace is, how they communicate) so that you can engage with them more effectively, more productively, more knowingly,   This seems true whether for personal or professional relationships - whether in the home or the office.

Why is this important?  Organizational dynamics dictate that for organizations to function at their optimum level, for the people in those organizations to be their most creative and productive, for teams to develop maximum efficiency, flexibility and adaptability, the people need to work well together.  And to work well together, colleagues must learn how to work with each other.  Over time, as they interact and intersect on projects and the day to day business of their organizations, people come to understand the styles, preferences, modus operandi and the individual likes and dislikes of the various team members.  No two people function exactly alike in the work place, or in life itself.  We're all nuanced.  Everybody has their own way of doing things, even as the organization has its own way.  But once people do gain insight and appreciation as to how other people around them generally function, they can more easily get past those hesitations, or missteps or outright mistakes in dealing with each other, so as to come up with better ideas, more easily refine and implement those ideas and get more done.  Unfortunately, that whole process is generally one that has no guidelines and goes on unconsciously.

The problem is the time learning curve.  It takes a long time.  And so different layers of staff have different layers of understanding of the nuances that make up the workplace identity of their fellow colleagues. Let's say you have a medium sized organization with 20 people on staff.  Let's say 10 of those people have been there for eight years or more, six have been there a couple of years, two for a year, and two are recent hires.  The long term staff know each other, know how they work together.  Over time they've come, by simple trial and error and experience, to understand how best to communicate with each other, what ticks each other off and what approaches work best with each other.  They have at least some knowledge and awareness of their strengths and their weaknesses, and ways of doing things, even if they never talk about those things.  That those differences exist is reality.  Over time, these long term co-workers have learned how each of them operates, and it helps them work together.  Those on staff for a lesser period of time are still learning how everybody operates.  They have less awareness of those around them.  The most recent additions are basically clueless and must spend considerable time before they are part of the team on the same levels, often times with little, to no, help in that process.

So if there was a way to speed up this learning process, everyone would benefit as individuals working together, and thus, the whole organization would work better, more efficiently, smoother and more productively.

If only each of us came with a user manual; one that would explain how we work to others.

I came across the idea of people writing their own "user manuals" to give those they work with insights into their preferred work patterns, communications preferences and general approach to the workplace:

"In 2013, Ivar Kroghrud, co-founder, former CEO, and lead strategist at the software company QuestBack, spoke with Adam Bryant at the New York Times about his leadership style. Kroghrud revealed that he had developed a one-page “user manual” so people could understand how to work with him. The manual includes information like “I appreciate straight, direct communication. Say what you are thinking, and say it without wrapping your message,” and “I welcome ideas at any time, but I appreciate that you have real ownership of your idea and that you have thought it through in terms of total business impact.
Kroghrud adopted the user manual after years of observing that despite individual dispositions and needs, employees tried to work with everyone in the same way. This struck him as strange and inefficient. “If you use the exact same approach with two different people, you can get very different outcomes,” he says.  
The user manual aims to help people learn to adapt to one another by offering an explicit description of one’s personal values and how one works best with others. This shortens the learning curve for new employees, and helps everyone avoid misunderstandings." 

The exercise is meant to be simple and straightforward.  One page, divided into sections, with bullet points in each.  Brevity in its execution makes it less onerous an assignment, easier for the intended recipients to digest, and the process is of benefit to the authors as well, as they learn from the attempt to describe their work approach.  Win win.

But the how of organizing your own user manual can be a challenge.  For organizations that want to try this kind of experiment, it would probably be valuable to agree on the outline / template of a format so everyone is on the same page.  As the author of the article succinctly noted:

"The idea of describing all your personality quirks, values, and workplace desires in one page is overwhelming.
To rein myself in, I followed the structure Abby Falik, founder and CEO of Global Citizen Year, used to write her user manual.  
On LinkedIn, Falik describes how she “sat with questions like: Which activities give me energy, and which deplete me? What are my unique abilities, and how do I maximize the time I spend expressing them? What do people misunderstand about me, and why?”
She synthesized these answers into a six-section manual:  Note:  See link for her excellent user manual for ideas.
My style
What I value
What I don’t have patience for
How to best communicate with me
How to help me
What people misunderstand about me

Those are all fine organizational questions, but individual organization staff's are free to come up with their own, customized sections for a user manual.  Here are some variations of the above (with just a couple of ideas in each) along the same theme:

  • How I communicate - preferences (e.g., do you prefer direct contact, phone calls, emails, tweets, Facebook or something else)
  • What's important to me in workplace relationships (e.g., do you like blunt, direct communication or do you prefer gentle tact)
  • What I don't like, what I try to avoid (e.g., do you abhor people who are late, or are you flexible with timelines?  Do you like ad hoc conversations or consider them a waste of your time?)
  • How you can help me work better......
  • How I can help you work better.......
  • Things that don't mean much to me  (e.g., is getting credit really important or is the idea itself what you are after?)
  • What I'm not so good at, but trying to improve (e.g., do you have a short fuse or are you calm and steady; are you detailed oriented or a big picture person?)
  • Bad habits that drive me crazy (e.g., does it make you crazy when people tell you they will call you in the afternoon with an answer and then don't?)

There are no right or wrong answers, nor any absolutes as to what to include or omit in your user manual.  The point of the exercise is to try to honestly give co-workers and colleagues some realistic idea of how you function in the workplace so they don't have to guess, and so they can understand and appreciate why you do things a certain way.  That knowledge, and your knowledge of them, can help you both, and the whole organization, to mesh together and avoid wasting time trying to figure each other out and approaching each other in the wrong ways.   Knowing the other people in your organization / department / team helps you to help them to help you. It's about making everyone's life easier.

The user manuals are meant to be living documents, updated periodically.  They are theoretically valuable to both long term staffers and those who are new to the organization.  They are simply a way to learn about the most important and critical element in the whole organization - the people.  And you want them to be helpful, so you want to avoid too much complexity and detail.  You want to avoid the experience many of us have trying to fathom user manuals for certain electronics - which experience is exasperating, frustrating and often useless.  A good user manual allows the reader to understand the subject matter. 

Certainly, this is just scratching the surface of interpersonal workplace relationships.  It is, of course, simplistic, and thus runs the risk of relying on surface impressions and information.  But it may also be a valid and valuable starting point in building intersections that yield more nuanced and in depth knowledge of each other and thus how to work best with each other.  These kinds of user manuals are meant to be a starting off point, not necessarily the definitive end all statement of how to manage a relationship. 

So perhaps this is an exercise that might be valuable to your organization as you try to maximize your staff working relationships, and optimize the way those relationships impact your creativity, productivity and efficiency - not to mention upping the good will of each other, and an increase in the level of satisfaction and enjoyment of collegial harmony.   As a bonus, the exercise of each person tying to briefly and succinctly describe how they function in the workplace ought to provide some self-insights and awareness, and that can lead to positive changes. 

Have a great week.

Don't Quit

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Death and Dying and Sad Goodbyes

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on......................."

There is a natural cycle to life.  Birth, life, death.  It applies to all living things in our universe, and to many things not technically living - including movements, organizations, and human structures.

There seem only a couple of things that may not necessarily be subject to this immutable law - ideas, which may not so easily die, and perhaps, art as well.

But human beings are not so exempt from the cycle.  Generally, we don't like even the idea of death, of things ending, of there being no future at some point.  Maybe that's part of the reason many of us, especially as we grow older, don't like change.  

Physical death can be quick, as in trauma like a heart attack, or an automobile accident, or a terrorist attack.  Often those who forfeit their lives in this manner are said to have died instantly, but that's a little off the mark.  Actual death for everyone is instant - happens in a nanosecond.  I know.  I've seen enough of it up close. For those people who end up dying from prolonged illness or even just old age, dying is a process.  Often a long process, and too often accompanied by considerable suffering, both physical and mental.

When someone dies young, it insults our sense of justice and the way things ought to work. It's a reminder of, and an affront to, both the fragility of humanity, and our powerlessness.  Deprived of what might have been, those people leave too early and those left are shocked, angry and defeated.  It just doesn't seem right, and never more true than with the death of someone we knew and cared about.  For those who have lived a life, and face the indignities and arrows of attacks on their aging body, the insult is no less, but it is more acceptable to us.  In either case, we mourn those we lose because we no longer enjoy their presence with us. And that hurts.

Though in truth, whenever death calls, those left will go on.  The immediate family and friends will feel the loss for a long time, and more acutely than those who might have otherwise known, or known of, the deceased, but even then, life goes on.  It has to.  And it always does.  Life is for the living.  It's a precious commodity, and except for a few defeated souls, we all cling to it dearly - perhaps because we aren't really sure what it will mean when its over -- though we may have an idea.  Perhaps that is why so many take solace in, and resolutely defend, religion.  Answers.  We want answers to questions we may not even be capable of forming.  And death is a mystery.

Dying young robs one of the chance to make plans, say goodbyes, indulge last wishes and make peace with the inevitable.  But in a sense it may be a preferred end, as it is quick, minimizes the suffering, and allows one the freedom not to be consumed with the process.  Then again, probably not preferred.  For those at the end of their years, while they may have the opportunity to make those plans and say those goodbyes, the process itself exacts a high price for that luxury.

As I grapple with threats to my own mortality, even though I have lived a life already, I am in no hurry to shuffle off Shakespeare's mortal coil.  Indeed, I, along with tens of millions of people every year, can bear testament to the fact that one can endure far more pain, far more anxiety, and far more uncertainty than you might imagine - the price, sometimes, of being alive still.

So it was with a keen sense of sadness and loss that I noted the week before last, that our little nonprofit arts family, lost two of its devotees.

Ebony McKinney passed away of pneumonia complications associated with lupus (an auto-immune condition where the body attacks itself.)  She was only 41.  Far too young to have been taken, but death knows no restrictions, and callously cares not in any case.  I don't know how much she had to cope with, what she might have had to endure, but it seemed from what I have read that it came out of nowhere.

I first met Ebony when we recruited her for a focus group for a study of Millennial and Gen X arts leaders for the Hewlett Foundation.  Though a little shy back then, she had a gifted mind, was utterly passionate about the arts, cared deeply, and keenly interested in all the aspects of our profession.  She had an infectious smile and a sparkling personality, and an inquisitive nature.  One of the outcomes of that study was that Hewlett, joined by the Irvine and Haas foundations, funded and supported the creation of emerging leader organizations in areas around the state.  Ebony was a co-founder, and played a dynamic role in the Bay Area  group - Emerging Arts Professionals; an important organization in the matrix of the future of the arts in the area.  She played a similar role in the creation of ABBA - Arts for a Better Bay Area.

I kept in touch with her, and she was invited to join our second Dinnervention conversation in Denver, where her voice had gained even more maturity and nuance and depth.

She went on from there to multiple involvements in our field, including her ongoing relationship with the San Francisco Arts Commission - impressing people and winning her legions of admirers.  She had a great future.  Cut short.

And now she isn't here anymore.  And that cycle of life can seem very cruel and selfish.

Harold Williams was the founding President of the J. Paul Getty Trust and served as its chief for nearly twenty years.  He guided the launch, planning, building and operation of the Getty Center and Museum - one of the iconic building complexes in the world.  Harold had a storybook resume and a long, vaulted life.  He was Chair of the Board of Norton Simon, President of Hunt Foods, Dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Management, Chair of the Securities Exchange Commission under Carter, member of the President's Committee on Arts and Humanities, Director of the California Endowment, and then intimately involved in the Los Angeles arts ecosystem.

I first me Harold at the opening of the Getty, and invited him, and he agreed, to co-chair a Forum on Creativity with then first lady, Sharon Davis.    This was one of the first summit meetings gathering arts leaders, artists, private sector leaders, elected officials and civic leaders to consider the arts in the wider context of the concept of creativity, and Harold lent the whole affair an air of legitimacy and credibility.  He went on to play an instrumental role in the efforts of so many in Los Angeles as they mobilized their resolve to move forward arts education across the southland.

I had at least a dozen in depth and utterly fascinating and amazing conversations with Harold over the next few years, and he was a genuinely kind, thoughtful, engaging and brilliant friend to me.  He was 89 when he died -- the same week as Ebony.

Both of these good people are gone now, and while they will be missed, and while they made lasting contributions to our field in large and small ways, and while life will go on, their passage struck home for me at this particular point in my life as I ponder my own longevity.

None of us really know how much longer we have - though, of course, most of us have some idea that our day may be close or far, far off.

I would like to admonish people to put away the petty things that too often monopolize their waking (and sleeping) hours and get on with the things that matter - families, friends, children, decency; to move past the defeats and set backs.  Life is unfair and unjust for everyone.  You soldier on.  So much time in life is wasted dealing with stuff that matters not -- while we all have more important things to do.  But it would be disingenuous for me to suggest I still have great things to accomplish before I'm done - the proverbial Robert Frost's miles to go before I sleep. The truth is my purpose now is really no more ambitious than just to wake up tomorrow and the next day, and maybe for even years to come if I'm lucky - and it's not that I have great plans for those days, however many there are; it's just that like everyone else really, I would like to be there to quietly enjoy them.  

The loss of Ebony and Harold reminds me of what an irreplaceable and wonderful feeling being there tomorrow truly is.  The great relief of waking up each morning - for however long.

I was lucky to have known Ebony and Harold, if even only a little and only briefly.

May the long light shine on them both.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Robert Booker Exit Interview

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on..................."

Bob Booker is retiring from the nonprofit arts field after over forty years of active service.  I asked him to sit for an interview last month, and he graciously agreed.

Bob Booker Bio:  
Bob Booker was the Executive Director of the Arizona Commission on the Arts from 2006 to 2017.  Prior to the Arizona posting, he was the Executive Director of the Minnesota State Arts Board from 1997 to 2005, and he was the Assistant Director of that agency from 1990 to 1996.  He was a Board member of Grantmakers in he Arts from 2010 to 2017, and GIA's Chair of the Board for 2016-2017.  He was also a Board member of the  National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (1999 - 2006) and President from 2003 to 2005. He served as a Trustee on the WESTAF Board from 2007 to 2013, as a Board member of Arts Midwest from 1997 to 2004, and on the Minnesota Aids Project Board (1996 - 2001).  Bob has served on numerous commissions and advisory councils, including the Arts and Culture Committee of the Arizona Mexico Commission, the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission, and the First National Advisory Committee of the Goucher College, M.A. Program in Arts Administration.  He served on Grants Panels for the National Endowment for the Arts and for Michigan, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansa, and Iowa.

In 2006 he received NASAA's Gary Young Award.

Here is the Interview:

Barry:  You’ve had a long and distinguished career in the field, and the opportunity to have seen the field change from numerous perspectives - including running the state agencies in Minnesota and Arizona and as Chair of NASAA and GIA.  What are the biggest changes in arts administration in the past decade or two?

Bob:  The establishment of Masters programs in Arts Administration and the influx of those graduates.
The changes in corporate giving to the arts—businesses abandoning arts support programs while transitioning their giving responsibilities to their marketing divisions. The entry of young arts administrators into the field who lack a solid knowledge of philanthropy and community development or a working knowledge of the history of arts funding in America.

Most pleasing is the growth of small and mid-size arts organizations in rural communities and communities of color.  These young organizations spring up from the grassroots of their communities, reflecting local voices and perspectives, and provide new and increased opportunity for active participation by residents and visitors alike.

Barry:  If you were starting as an Arts Administrator today, knowing what you know, what is the one skill you would absolutely want to have?

Bob: Young arts administrators need to have a solid knowledge of nonprofit finance. They need to possess a clear understanding of balance sheets, audits and fiscal reports. In addition, a solid knowledge of at least one art form is paramount. A solid grounding in artmaking within the visual, literary, performing or media art forms gives the individual the basic skills to relate to other working artists.

Barry:  What’s wrong with arts advocacy today, and how do we fix it?

Bob:  We continue to preach to and create messages that are understood only by other arts advocates.  Though I find some of the national arts advocacy ads charming, they often include arts references that many Americans may not understand or relate to. Of course, this defeats the purpose of the campaign in the first place.  Why do we continue to focus on individuals already participating in the arts, apart from engaging them in direct advocacy calls and efforts?

As a field, we continue to misunderstand how Americans participate as creative individuals in their daily life. Our messages ignore what is important and has meaning to them, and how creativity plays a role in their families’ day to day activities.

In regards to arts advocacy in general, we need to take a new approach that places the arts as a vital, engaging activity of tremendous value to Americans.  Too often we approach advocacy and communication with our heads bowed and our hands out: “Please sir, can you save the arts? Can you save my organization that has been in the red for years and would you maybe consider following your state’s policy that requires arts programming in schools?”  We are too timid, too afraid of offending and are perceived as impotent, ineffectual and incompetent.

Barry:   Is it time to reimagine the NEA and what might NEA 2.0 look like?

Bob:  I might imagine a federal agency that is transparent in all their operations. The first step would be to open the entire panel process to anyone who wants to observe. Another step would be to reorganize the staff from discipline-based silos to programmatic teams working on specific goals in service to the arts in America and, more importantly, in service to the country’s citizens.  Some of these newly created programs might be funding-related or initiative or service-based.

Over the past 50 years, the NEA, alongside their partners, the State Arts Agencies, have built a great infrastructure for the arts in virtually every district in the country.  Now is the time to refine that work, examine who the participants are (and are not) and retool the agency to serve for another 50 great years.

In some ways rallying the various disparate elements of the arts is like herding cats.  How do we forge a “big tent? mentality and get those various parts of the arts to operate on the same page?

Barry:  What is the single biggest thing the arts can do to address the equity challenge and systemic, structural racism?

Bob:  During my tenure as president of Grantmakers in the Arts, the organization produced what I believe to be the most significant and powerful statement on racial equity among national arts organizations.  As members of the board we participated together in training programs that provided us with a collective grounding. With that basic knowledge and the full participation of board members in honest discussions of race, equity and respect, we moved forward.

Many organizations—often, unfortunately, very large institutions--continue to reject any substantial participation in this arena. Their actions or lack thereof shows the privilege, ignorance and racism that exists in our field.  As funders, board members and participants we need to address this issue across America.  I often say, “Look out the window and see what Arizona looks like; is this what your board, staff, and audiences look like?”  Our mission statement at the Commission is a simple one.  We imagine an Arizona where everyone can participate in and experience the arts. I often add, whoever you are, wherever you live and wherever you are from.

Barry:  State funding to SAAs is a political football.  What can finally be done to establish a reliable, sustainable and meaningful revenue stream for SAAs across the country?

Bob:  As an industry, we have tried many approaches to increase our resources to the field.  The National Association of State Arts Agencies prepared a briefing paper on this topic. .  Many of the ideas, like the establishment of an arts endowment, automobile license plates, fees and tax initiatives, have found varying degrees of success, depending on the state where they are implemented.  After watching Minnesota’s Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment deliver millions of new dollars to issues and causes of importance to residents of the state, including the arts, I am inclined to say that this may be the only way to secure a steady long-term funding stream. Of course, the establishment of endowments is another way to go. However, in Arizona we saw our $20 million-dollar endowment swept in its entirety by the Governor and the Legislature during challenging economic times.

Barry:  As NASAA moves forward as the service organization for the nation’s SAAs, what would you like to see it focus on for the future?

Bob:  Historically, the organization has succeeded in providing premier services to State Arts Agencies.  The materials they produce for the field are first class, their conferences solid and well attended, and their strong voice in advocating for arts councils and the National Endowment for the Arts presents a clear, powerful and unified vision.  I applaud CEO Pam Breaux for her active leadership in these most challenging times.

Barry:  We have dramatically increased the amount of research being done by the sector.  What areas of research do you feel are the most valuable now, and what areas have we yet to explore that we need to prioritize?

Bob:  Research is important to any field or business.  Truly, the arts industry has benefited from solid exploration of issues we face every day and ones that we should be prepared for.  However, it is somewhat like those posts we see on Facebook where a friend asks for your calls to your Senator or Representative. If we don’t follow through and call the individual the effort is lost.  Research is similar.  How long have we seen the statistics about how some large institutions have been receiving the bulk of funding from both private and public sources? How many reports do we have to read about staffing inequities in the field or the needs of working artists?  The efforts of the researchers are null and void if we, as members in the industry, refuse to act on their discoveries.

Barry:  What is your best advice to new arts leaders?

Bob:  Your team is what makes the magic happen. Hire a staff that is creative, entrepreneurial, dedicated and kind.  Always support the element of risk in their work, thank them often, give them authority to act and allow them to fail and learn.  Don’t dwell on the negatives, but focus on the positives of their daily work. Throw out the time clock; flexibility is the sister of creativity.  Never be afraid to make staffing changes. Those individuals who don’t understand the importance of organizational loyalty and the importance of supporting their fellow staff members and director have no place in the organization.  Finally, enjoy the work, laugh a lot, listen and help everyone climb up the ladder to success.

Barry:  Under Janet Brown, GIA is a vastly different organization than it was when she assumed the helm.  What do you want to see in here successor, and where do you see GIA in 2020?

Bob:  I am so proud of the work that Ms. Brown and the board and members of GIA have accomplished.  During my tenure as Chairman, I saw the organization publish what I believe to be the most important and rational statement of Racial Equity created by any national arts organization.  The work that GIA continues to do regarding capitalization is so important to organizations large and small.  Cash flow and the ability to hold reserves for future challenges is paramount in the success of any nonprofit organization today. The advocacy work done in Washington on education in the arts is incredibly successful.

It would be my hope that the new President and CEO of Grantmakers in the Arts would continue the good work in capitalization, education and racial equity and build new resources and programs that address the needs of professional working artists and community arts development in the future.

Barry:  Where do you see SAAs ten years from now?  What will be different about their priorities and how they function?

Bob:   I hope that SAA’s refocus their agenda away from traditional formula-based grantmaking toward more inclusive and responsive actions focused on expanding the number of and access to arts resources and participation in the arts in communities across their state. Through strategic grantmaking investments and long term engagement of community, political, and arts folks, I believe we will see a renaissance in creative participation, while we build-up local arts infrastructure grounded on the interests and needs of the communities.

As agencies, we need to listen to community members across our states.  We must realize that our constituents are not the nonprofit arts organizations we fund, but the residents of our state. As we engage a broader audience of individuals in our communities, we will learn what is important to them and better support them in their homegrown efforts to leverage local creative assets to create positive change and address community needs and challenges.

Barry:  We have talked forever about increasing the public value of the arts in America. Assess that effort to date and for the future?

Bob:  Yes, I am remembering the work we did together with 13 other state arts agencies through the Wallace Foundation’s state initiative.  The discussions on building public value, barriers to participation and creative messaging still resonates with me.  I am quite excited about the work that David Fraher, the President and CEO of Arts Midwest, is doing through the Creating Connection initiative. The concept of building public will is not new, but the approach, data collection, and conversation coming out of the program is surely innovative and I believe will be helpful to all of us in the field.

Barry:  What are you most optimistic about for the future of the nonprofit arts, and what areas cause you the most concern?

Bob:  Our data in Arizona shows a dramatic increase in small and mid-size arts organizations working with artists to create new literary, visual, and performing art.  It also shows increased participation in the activities of these small and mid-size arts organizations, something not seen in our largest institutions. Support artists in the creation and exhibition of new work is paramount to the future of the arts in America.  These organizations, often young, small, and connected to communities of color are indeed building understanding and participation among audience members.

Barry:  What’s next for you?

Bob:  In late July, right before I retire, I will be attending my first artist residency program, The Sedona Summer Colony. It will be, I hope, a way to focus on my practice as a visual artist.

Recently I have joined the steering committee for the Bolz Center for Arts Administration, a program of the School of Business at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Working with issues on HIV and Human rights is a personal goal of mine. I look forward to traveling, working in my studio and sleeping late.  Who knows what’s next, I’ve never done this before.

I do know that I will cherish the memories of my work in this amazing field and the many people who I count as colleagues and friends.  It has been a great run and I’ve loved every minute.

Thank you Bob.  On behalf of the field, wishing you all the best.  We remain in your debt.

Have a great week everybody.

Don't Quit