Terrence Taylor: How to Build Social Capital – Lessons from Google, Meta & Discovery

“Show up for every opportunity created for you.”
– Terrence Taylor
This may come as a shock, but… your career progression is NOT just about your job performance. The idea of building Social Capital, or the advantages derived from professional relationships that can facilitate career growth, is seldom talked about but is so crucial. On this episode of the On Work and Revolution podcast, Debbie Goodman interviews Terrence Taylor, who has uniquely held HR, Leadership, and Talent roles in Discovery Group (South Africa), Google (USA), and Meta (USA).

Terrence’s candid account of working at some of the world’s most innovative companies offers a unique perspective highlighting the challenges of moving up the rungs and the hard lessons learned along the way. This conversation is full of practical guidance for anyone seeking to elevate their career, especially if you’re in a competitive corporate environment.

Debbie & Terrence dig into:

✓ The 3 company culture values that Google, Meta & Discovery have in common
✓ The hardest career advancement lesson Terrence learned
✓ Ways to be intentional when building social capital in your workplace
✓ How the employee handbook can be a misdirection for us

About our guest, Terrence Taylor:

Terrence Taylor is a seasoned HR Executive who was born in Sierra Leone but grew up in Maryland. He started his career on Wall Street and ended his Finance journey on a high note by serving as CFO for an Internet Start-Up (Africa.com) in 2001.

Twenty-one years ago, he began working in leadership development at Turner, Harper & Associates in Johannesburg. From there, he started his own global consultancy, where he designed and delivered experiential leadership development and learning solutions for organisations. He has been on the faculty at the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) since 2004. He has lectured on a variety of company-specific programs and designed sought-after programmes, which evolved into the GIBS Genesis Programme and the Business Opportunities and Innovations in Africa MBA Elective. He has worked at Ecobank, Standard Bank, Discovery Limited, and Google, creating and implementing impactful and award-winning leadership development programs and building an internal Organization Development consultancy.

He now works at Facebook/Meta, where he has helped build the collective capability of the Learning and Development Business Partners to consult on Organizational Effectiveness and, in May, was appointed leader of the Leadership Development Business Partner team.

Helpful Links:

Follow Terrence on LinkedIn

Open for Full Episode Transcript

Open for Full Episode Transcript

Debbie Goodman  00:00

Welcome to on work and revolution, where we talk about what’s shaking up in the world of work. I’m your host, Debbie Goodman. I’m the CEO of Jack Hammer Global, which is a global group of executive search and leadership coaching companies. I’m also an employee wellbeing activist. It is my mission to help people and companies to create amazing workplaces all over the world. I believe that it is everybody’s right to have joyful work life, so I’m sticking to that. I hold that as a high ideal. And today, I am very excited. I’m being joined by Terrence Taylor, who is my guest. So I was introduced to Terrence a few months ago. And I discovered that he has the most unique background in the people leadership and talent and organizational effectiveness space. And I was like, Okay, I got to have him on the pod. Now, I use the word unique, because I have never before encountered someone in the people in leadership space, who has worked in one of South Africa’s top companies, namely Discovery, which is, for those of you who don’t know, it’s a large financial services group in South Africa, which is where I’m from, as well as he’s also worked in two of the United States top tech companies, namely Google and Facebook. Terrence is currently the director of organizational effectiveness at Meta Facebook. He was previously talent and organizational development consultant at Google where he worked for about five years. And prior to that general manager, talent leadership and learning at Discovery. So I just could not resist this opportunity to find somebody who’s also got this cross continental leg in both places kind of thing. And particularly in the space of organizational effectiveness. So today, we are going to be chatting to Terrence about his experience working in these top companies, which honestly may seem like the Holy Grail of places to work. We’ll also discuss some of Terrence’s learnings on how to navigate one’s career in a large organization like Google, as well as other great insights from working in companies that are considered to be centers of excellence, employers of choice, the place everybody wants to be, or maybe not. Welcome, Terrence.


Terrence Taylor  02:31

Thank you so much, Debbie. Wow, what an introduction. I would love to meet that guy. Is that really me? Oh, yes. To share my experience, and maybe some insights, maybe some provocations and hopefully something that folks will find useful and helpful.


Debbie Goodman  02:47

Okay, great. Well, let’s dig right into it. So you’ve had this, as I’ve said, unique vantage point of working in the let’s call it HR people talent, leadership space in these three incredible companies. What, in your view are the commonalities that make these employers great?


Terrence Taylor  03:07

Yeah, that’s such a great question. All three employers have, I think, three key things in common. One, their cultures are very people-centric, and seek to unleash the best in their people. As part of that cultural approach, they also request and almost demand of their people to think big. So you might hear it in different ways, like Google will talk about 10x thinking, right? But that idea that you are now part of this very unique company that intends to make a huge impact on the world, and therefore you should think bigger. And then the last thing is, both companies have a way of finding talent, making the talent feel cared for and then giving the talent lots of runway, If I use an HR term, when we grow. And they can have different things. And they can possibly see themselves that even if they didn’t see themselves, when they joined, they could start to see themselves in different roles doing different things. I think these three companies have those things in common when it comes to the people side. On the business side, each company has found a very unique way of serving a group of clients who come to almost rely and depend exclusively on the company’s services. Create these wonderful products and services that once you become a client, sometimes you just find yourself wanting to do more and more or doing more and more with the company so very profitable in that way.


Debbie Goodman  04:57

Okay. Well, that’s a that’s a great summary. I, you know, the things that you spoke about in terms of the people-centric bit I mean, there are so many companies that make that as a promise, yes, we’re going to hire great people. And then we’re going to give you this runway, and we’re going to let you run loose and do all these great things. And then people arrive. And that is so not the case. They are absolutely caged. The cultures are not what they were promised. But the great reason for having you on the pod is that you’ve actually worked at these places. So some of the things we hear from the outside, is it actually true? And I am curious to probe a little bit more into some of the detail. Particularly let’s go to one point. First which is, there are these urban legends about Google receiving more than 2 million resumes per year? Is that true?


Terrence Taylor  05:57

When I was there, that is the same statistics we were shared, they will share with us internally. So I have to believe that that is true.


Debbie Goodman  06:06

Wow, man, and I imagine only increased over the last couple of years. Okay, so assuming that is the case, then because it’s verified internally. It’s the legend externally. How on earth does anyone ever get an interview? I mean, have you got like hundreds of minions screening CVS? I mean, how does it happen?


Terrence Taylor  06:28

Well, it happens a couple of ways. One, if you have someone who’s a hiring manager, and they know you and they want you to join Google, then they can, in many ways influence that you are part of the recruitment process. Right?


Debbie Goodman  06:48

Okay. Okay, so first step, all listeners, make friends with someone who works at Google. That’s how you get an interview. Okay, first thing, okay, next,


Terrence Taylor  06:58

And important for them to be a hiring manager. There’s an internal program that allows us to even recommend people for interviews. And Debbie, I’m very proud to say that in five and a half years at Google, my record is O for 122. I recommend so many people that never got interviews.


Debbie Goodman  07:21

Okay, so how does that


Terrence Taylor  07:23

That’s why I’m saying hiring manager. So, for example, I had met the hiring manager in South Africa while I was at Discovery, and he had come for a visit to look into the executive development space because he wanted to see what was new and trending. And yeah, I was fortunate that through a mutual friend, Maxine Jaffet, we were able to meet and he then got a chance to hear about what we were doing at Discovery, he was sufficiently impressed that then he decided that when he had an opportunity, he was going to try to entice me to come to Google and leave Discovery. In my case, I think I was very fortunate. And I just want to be clear with folks. Yes, it’s good to know people at Google, but try to know people who can at least get one out of 122 people interview.


Debbie Goodman  08:10

Okay, so your track record sucks. But at least there’s a lesson in that. You were the incorrect influencer. Okay. I had heard some data just in general, around how most people in the US in particular, get jobs in big corporations is not through the sort of CV sending ATS resume sending process. It really is through networks and networking. And so for anybody who thinks that I mean, we know that job applications going through the ATS as a nowadays most particularly with bots, doing robots doing a lot of the screening itself, it must be just thankless and heartbreaking for candidates out there in the market. So networks are clearly robust and work in this instance. What other key learnings did you gain about Google’s talent acquisition or interview process that you think really should be replicated out there?


Terrence Taylor  09:18

Google was very clear about the things it was looking for in the successful candidates. And I’m going to share with you the wording at the time, it’s since shifted, and I can also talk a bit about why it’s shifted. That’s useful to talk about, it looks for leadership. It looks for expertise. And it looks for cultural fit, which it used to call Googliness. Right? So you would have interviewers who would be looking for those specific things, to be able to make a decision as to whether you should be advanced through the process so like it’s a stage gate process or first step, you have the interview. If you pass that interview, then you’re interviewed by the next set of folks. Right. Googliness and culture fit were later changed, because there’s been a concern when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion that perhaps that was a somewhat of a negative screen to diversifying, you know, the talent pool.


Debbie Goodman  10:29

Yeah. Okay, so, I mean, this is very similar to other top corporations. I mean, McKinsey does the same thing. Meta does. I mean, that’s pretty standard. Are people trained to actually do the interviewing well? I mean, what would you recommend? Because I mean, this is not rocket science. How did Google get it so right with being able to identify, attract, and then mostly retain some of the best talent in the world?


Terrence Taylor  10:57

I think in the early stages, right, I came into Google to 2016. The company was already, you know, a teenager by them. But I think, very early stages, what I’ve heard is that the founders, and especially Larry Page, was actually involved in every single interview was a consequential hire. So it seemed that that in and of itself, then created this notion that interviewing and finding the right people is really important. And yes, there is training for that. I think by the time that I joined the training, and probably the scrutiny of the training was not as high as I imagined it was in the beginning. By that stage, Google was already 60,000 people, right? Wow, what those early days those early years, recruitment was really difficult. I mean, there are legends, urban legends about Google interviews, right. Yeah. So yeah. The time I joined, that had changed. And there was this machine that was very well oiled in terms of how to, first of all, like, you don’t have to really look if 2 million people are applying, right? Yeah, you have to select. So like the selection process was really well oiled and so yes, has Google done things that are different to what other top companies do process wise? Not necessarily. But maybe the proof is in the how, and in the coming together, and the conversations that allow folks to make the right call in terms of bringing people in. But tension reminds me of a story when I worked with the Google AI team, which is run by Jeff Dean. So internally, it’s called the research and machine intelligence team, at least it was when I was still there. And we were trying to sell this notion of talent as differentiated investments. To say like, for example, these are hypose. Or these are successors, or, you know, I’m setting aside this group of people, because these are the folks who we want to do outsize investments in. His comment, which has always stayed with me was, everyone here is talent. So in an organization that at the time, I think was at least 3 500, or not 4 500 people, everyone is talent. And if that’s the case, differentiated investment is not the way to approach it is more of talent engagement, and finding opportunities for folks to bring what they can to the organization and impact all the wonderful projects that were going on at the time, some of which we’re now seeing as the generative AI wars.


Debbie Goodman  13:39

Right. I love that. Everyone is talent. And I guess then if you know, companies always pass off the now cliche of the people are your greatest assets. But the differentiator really is the ones who actually act like it, who really invest properly in the process of finding the best talent, because it’s like, that’s the investment and then actually developing them because everybody that is hired is actually talent. So that’s a great message. All right, let’s get into more more of a personal note, because in our pre call, you mentioned that at Google, you felt you were somehow not on people’s radar for promotion. You felt like and if it was your words or mine, being black, sort of passed over. In hindsight now, do you know why? What were you not doing?


Terrence Taylor  14:32

Debbie, the question is more so like, why didn’t I see sooner that I was doing the wrong things?


Debbie Goodman  14:39

Either way? Okay.


Terrence Taylor  14:41

Here’s what’s fascinating, and I do hope that your listeners who are ambitious as I am would benefit from this if they’re doing the social capital part of work the wrong way. And for those who know that I’m being polite and maybe using like diplomatic language, I’m talking about politics.


Debbie Goodman  15:02

One of my favorite topics, okay, social capital, politics…


Terrence Taylor  15:07

I showed up at Google, playing the game of politics at Google as if I was playing a tennis match. So I showed up with my tennis racquet, and my tennis ball. But it turns out that the game was actually basketball. I was wondering why I wasn’t getting that little ball into, into the hoops as much as everyone else seemed to be doing. What do I mean by that? In any organization that we work, there are social dynamics, and there are things that are happening where people are doing things for people that allow them to build social capital. And when you build the right social capital, it actually makes a huge difference in whether you are considered for certain opportunities or not. So this is the hidden part of what is not said, or what many of us shy away from saying, most companies will tell you that, yes, we promote based on merit, that was not my experience. Promotion is very much tied in, especially in the HR space tied into, are you part of the kitchen cabinets of the leader. And for those who may not appreciate this term, kitchen cabinet, as I understand it is a very African term that talks about in the political space, you have a president and then you have all these ministers. But in reality, the biggest influence on the president sometimes are not the ministers. And this might be true outside of Africa as well, now that I think about it, but the kitchen cabinet are those few people that really have the president’s ear and the president trust, so therefore, they can influence the president, something similar happens in our organizations where we have leaders who know who it is that they can trust. Now, this may be very well, because this person just continues to do a bang out job every time they’re given a project. And it also could be because this person has done things to make sure that the leader looks good when the leader’s in front of the leaders, seniors, or this person is the first one to ensure that the leader is aware when certain things are not going well. So the leader can also take corrective action. Whatever the case is, I was not doing those things, because I was super focused on my work, I felt that if I did a great job, then I would get ahead. And that’s what I was told, like, come in the level that I was given initially was lower than the level I was playing in Discovery, but I was okay with that, because I was promised that you’ll be able to rise quickly, then I found that I wasn’t rising quickly. And now I know it’s because I wasn’t playing the social capital game correctly.


Debbie Goodman  17:39

Okay. So I think that there’s also some, we need to dig into this building of social capital in the way that you’ve described it, because I think a lot of the time why people shy away from this is because they interpret it as being sort of sucking up or sycophantic or sort of playing games or a, a win lose game. Because if if they’re competing to get the leaders ear, it means they’re going to shove somebody else out the way. And it’s not necessarily what you’re talking about. That’s not necessarily a binary situation. And the politics, as I’ve spoken about on many occasions, is the way in which organizations actually run efficiently and effectively. And if we were to see this in a different lens, if we were to understand how one builds social capital in a positive way, then we instead of shying away from it, we consider it part of the job because if you had said, well, here are my KPIs, and here’s another one, building social capital. And this is how I do it. And not necessarily that is formulaic. It’s got to be authentic, but that it’s part of an awareness. It’s part of a stakeholder engagement, because we also talk about stakeholder engagement, right? And using like my little inverted commas there, which is kind of the same thing is how do you support the people who are the key decision makers in the organization in a way that really adds value, is what I’m hearing from you.


Terrence Taylor  19:08

Yes, and I want to just highlight and emphasize your point about this notion of social capital and stakeholder engagement. Many of us who rise through the ranks in organizations and get projects accomplished, understand the vital importance of stakeholder engagement. We even have terms of stakeholder management, stakeholder mapping. Many of us do the same when it comes to our career and our career advancement. So at Google, I later found out that if you want to get promoted, there’s actually a process that happens. And there are key decision makers who are involved in that process. And it’s not necessarily something that everyone knows about.


Debbie Goodman  19:50

Wow. Right. How interesting.


Terrence Taylor  19:53

Yes, and it’s not even so much that that’s a nefarious or a negative thing that where there’s inequity because the information is not distributed, there’s some people who are very driven. And they will do the extra work to figure out, unapologetically, if I start here and I want to go there. There was a vice president at Google, that I remember in finance that was really good about this. What is needed? Who do I need to be aware of what I’m doing? So when the conversations are held, when I’m not in the room, they know that the capability and then she would make investments in making sure that those people were aware of what she she was doing, but also be if there are projects that matter to those people, she would make sure that she played a positive role in that, a constructive role. So stakeholder engagement is absolutely vital when we want to build social capital, and also invest in understanding, what does it really take to get to the next level, and when you’re told, just do ABC, go further. Relationships of trust, where people will take you aside and say, actually, in this company, like a VP recently did at an event in Meta, what matters really at this company, at the level of director and above, is that every performance cycle, your name has to be attached to what’s known as a rock. So that project of consequence, if your name is not attached to that rock and all you’ve done, and listen to my wording, all you’ve done is manage your team effectively. That’s not going to cut it. Many of us, myself, before understanding that stakeholder management and social capital and politics really matter, I would have just focused on this is my team, let me manage my team and make sure my team has done a good job. No, your name has to be attached to something. Because the decision makers, that’s how they did socialized to evaluate success.


Debbie Goodman  21:57

Okay. And of course, none of this comes in the employee handbook. No, when you when you’re joining a company.


Terrence Taylor  22:05

The employee handbook is a misdirection sometimes, right?


Debbie Goodman  22:07

Completely. Here are your KPIs on your job. Doesn’t have any of the stuff in it. Right? And then there’s, I mean, does one get this insight perhaps through being mentored in a company with a mentor? Okay, so you might get it through mentorship?


Terrence Taylor  22:25

Yes. Find the right mentors, first of all, and how do you do that? Well, I think this again, is about intentionality. Get deeply comfortable with being clear with yourself first, like, what do I want out of this opportunity with this company? Yeah, whatever the company is, what does it take for me to realize what it is I seek from this company? And then here’s the part that many of us shy away from. Who can help me? And it’s not who can help me from who can I use. Reciprocity. If you really want to build social capital, It’s like every good relationship. Reciprocity matters. Why do we have lifelong friends? Part of it is because we’re just deeply comfortable with them. But most of it is because in our moment of need, most likely they have done something to help us. And naturally in their moment of need, we’ve done things to help them. Reciprocity.


Debbie Goodman  23:27

Goodness me so many incredible nuggets in all of that. How are you going about the process of building social capital? Now that you’ve moved to Meta? Have you taken your lessons? Are you applying them?


Terrence Taylor  23:40

First of all, I put down the tennis racket and the tennis ball. Okay, I’m asking first of all, okay, it’s the game of basketball, right? Okay. What do you need right now? Do you need me to basically, block? Do you need me to play defense? Right? Do you need me to sit on the bench and be a cheerleader? So I’m saying all of this, in analogy form a metaphor for but basically it’s trying to understand the organization that I’m in, what matters most to the senior leaders. And then I have my mentor. And luckily for me, my mentor was the person who recommended that I be hired, although she wasn’t the hiring manager, but I have my mentor. Right. And then third, with my mentor’s guidance, I make sure that every opportunity that’s been created for me no matter how small, I show up, and what do I mean by that? In the past, I was naive enough to think that okay, this thing is a small thing. So like, it doesn’t really matter how I do it or you know, who knows about it. Know, every little opportunity you get to be on the radar of the the players and the decision makers in your organization is an opportunity for you to show them what you’re capable of and also, one thing that I’ve learned is when to put my hand up. And when to have someone else suggest that I work on something. At Google, I made the mistake all the time of putting my hand up all the time. And I thought that was a positive thing. But I’ve since learned that actually alienated some members of the team. Whereas at Meta, I now consult with my mentor about, hey, this thing has come up, is this a good idea for me to put my hand up? Or, you know, is there something else that I should be doing or thinking about? So we coordinate very well, how I show up for the opportunities that I’m given, any opportunity that she’s created for me, I’ve gone out of my way to make sure that I justify her providing that opportunity and working.


Debbie Goodman  25:50

Okay, so also being just a little bit more strategic about which times you’re stepping on to the basketball court. Yes. So yeah, yeah. And then obviously, having the right mentor, that which kind of can sometimes be a little bit of luck.


Terrence Taylor  26:08

Let’s be honest, yeah. It can be a little bit of luck. And sometimes you have to create your own luck.


Debbie Goodman  26:15

Yes. In the speaking of creating your own luck, or sometimes just being on the hard edge of poor, poor fortune, you move to Meta. And then shortly thereafter, the company went through their series of layoffs, 25% of teams in four tranches over six months, my word that must have been brutal. I have to ask, what was the because it was it was open and transparent. What was the experience of sort of like waiting to know whether you got the chop? Because my understanding is that it also wasn’t based on whether you were doing a great job, or it wasn’t based on sometimes you’re just in the wrong team. So what was that like? I mean, what was going on with people in their psyche, and they’re sort of the sense of, of the team’s the emotional component.


Terrence Taylor  27:16

Debbie, the analogy that I make is, it’s like being a survivor of an earthquake. So we’ll go through the timeline, the first earthquake actually happened in November. And as we looked around those of us who made it, and we thought, okay, that was really scary. And honestly, it was, it shook up many people, I was relatively new to the organization. So it was more, perhaps of a upset, slightly upsetting thing. But for some people, it was a deeply destabilizing the psychological contract that they had with Meta. They felt that was broken, right. So once we survived that first earthquake, we thought the ground was safe. But you know, you start to get a bit nervous and you wondering, like any little movement, you feel, you wonder is that a tremor is that another earthquake, and then we got all the way through to about January, February. And then we were told very transparently first time I’ve been in a company that’s gone through a layoff that was that has been so transparent, that there will be three additional rounds. So April and May. And we were more or less told that it will affect the entire company. So like, there’ll be no department that would be untouched, and we were told the reasoning behind it, which in some ways, helped. But you can imagine now, Debbie, you know when the trauma is going to happen. So as you get closer to the dates, in March, nervousness kicks in, especially if you’re in that part of the organization that you know, is going to be impacted. And we in HR were told that it would happen to HR in May. So now the first tremor comes you survive, because you know that it’s not your turn, but you can see the damage and the impact. So emotionally, it’s starting to get like really gut wrenching. April happens. You see what’s happened, you hear the numbers, you know that you’re next. So then between April and May just lots of nerves, I personally started preparing for life outside of Meta. Fair enough. I felt that I owe it to my family and myself to make sure that should my number be called which there was a very good possibility would have been called that I had something else that I could do. Right, and then surprise surprise, I’m safe. So I’ve heard the notion of survivor guilt, right. Yeah, but those of us who’ve been in these types of situations, I definitely experienced elements of that. Much more though, was just the devastation of losing every single team member on my team. Despite the fact that I survived, not one other member of the team that I managed survived, my co-lead survived. But no member of her team survived. And then it’s all of us. Now we’re in a new team. And I was tapped to lead this new team, which, in some ways, perhaps going back to building social capital and demonstrating that any time I had the opportunity, what I want to contribute, but also what I’m capable of, may have paid off. I’m guessing right, because I don’t know, I was not consulted. And then the pain of building the team that I have, that has just survived this gut wrenching experience of losing so many close colleagues. And then this lack of psychological safety, and the difficulty of knowing, can I trust now that the ground is stable, right, knowing we went through three things like, what isn’t there going to be another?


Debbie Goodman  31:16

Yeah. Wow. Okay. That’s like the survivors guide to really, really challenging period, that it’s kind of unprecedented in this organization. Were there any positives to come out of this, I mean, you’ve spoken about all the hard things.


Terrence Taylor  31:35

For sure. Let me, of course, I’m speaking from my own perspective, and I want to be respectful to members of our organization that are still I think, struggling with adjusting to all that happened. I saw many positives almost immediately. First of all, I understood the rationale that was given. And perhaps because I was relatively new, it was easier for me to psychologically take that in as opposed to emotionally take it in. The rationale was that we had gotten to the stage where it wasn’t so easy to get things done. And we needed to be more efficient in how we were doing things right now, for those of us who have had consultants work with us, you normally know, efficiency means job cuts, yeah. Okay. But in this case, I really did buy into the logic that if the company wanted to remain as responsive and nimble as possible, despite its size, that the levels that we had built, when most people use headcount as a way to solve problems needed to be unwound. And we needed to be much more focused again, on what is the problem we’re trying to solve? And how else do we solve it? Outside of just hiring more people? Right, right. So having said that, what were the positives that I saw? I think we all have seen it. Meta as a company has now released so many innovative and creative products, including Threads, which surpassed ChatGPT to get to 100 million subscribers the fastest. And recently at Connect, so many announcements, exciting announcements were made in terms of what we’re doing in the hardware space, what’s happening in the generative AI space, and even interesting things like we have this AI characters that play yeah. Like Snoop.


Debbie Goodman  33:46

I heard about that this week. Yeah.


Terrence Taylor  33:49

Yeah. So there’s so much momentum and energy, that the layoffs, or post layoffs is being released in the company. And for those of us who care about stock price, I’m one of them. The stock price has done phenomenally well. Right. You know, I don’t want to get off track but I do sometimes ask myself, like, isn’t that interesting that when we lay off people, that’s when the stock price goes up?


Debbie Goodman  34:14

Yeah, so a double edged sword. But glad to be able to have a summary on the positives that you’re seeing out of that. Terrence your candor, your insights, I mean, I was absolutely right that you have an incredibly unique perspective. Thank you for these great learnings. Both personal thank you for being vulnerable and sharing what you’ve learned and and also such great practical tips for people who hear the word social capital and are going like what the hell does that mean? So I think this has been informative, insightful. What are you most excited about for 2024? Because we’re almost there.


Terrence Taylor  35:00

Yeah, so great question. 2024 I’m most excited for what we can do as a family. So by family, this is not professional. Now my family has been on this journey to have a better understanding of what we want to do and how we want to build intergenerational wealth. And I’m very excited to see the baby steps that were starting to take become real steps in 2024.


Debbie Goodman  35:30

Thank you for ending on that wonderful, positive and personal note, I have loved, we’ve gone a lot longer than I usually go on on these podcasts because I couldn’t bear to stop you midway. Thank you so much. I would love to invite you back again. But for now, thank you so much.


Terrence Taylor  35:47

Thank you, Debbie.


Kind podcast reviews help us make awesome content for you!

This site uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience, analyse traffic and serve targeted content.