About the speaker

Malcolm Smith is the Head of Global Business Development for Centrical. Prior to that, he was a Business Development lead at Databricks. He has been in the SaaS space for about seven years and currently lives in upstate New York with his wife and two children.

Mark Lerner:

Everybody, welcome back to the RevAmp podcast. I am your host, Mark Lerner. I’m joined here today by Malcolm Smith. I had the opportunity to meet Malcolm at an event recently here in the New York City area, and I’m super excited to hear what he has to say. So Malcolm, why don’t you tell the folks at home a little bit about yourself and your background?

Malcolm Smith:

Sure. Well Mark, thank you so much for the opportunity. It’s a pleasure to be on the podcast. I listened to a couple episodes and it’s fantastic. So excited to be amongst the alum. My name is Malcolm Smith. I am currently the head of global business development for Centrical. Prior to that, I was a business development lead at Databricks. I’ve been in the SaaS space about seven years now. I live in upstate New York with my wife and two children and just having a great time with it.

Mark Lerner:

Oh wow, upstate. So that was a trip for you the other day?

Malcolm Smith:

A little bit, yeah. I used to live across the river in Jersey, but second kid needed the fourth bedroom, and I don’t know if you’ve seen the price of four bedroom apartments, but they’re like, come on, my mortgage is cheaper than that.

Mark Lerner:

Right.

Malcolm Smith:

Sacrifice the commute for the space.

Mark Lerner:

Yeah. Just for context for the folks at home, Malcolm and I met at a Modern Sales Pros event in New York City the other night. Actually, we have Pete Kazanjy loaded up as a recording for the podcast as well coming up. So yeah, I got to mine that really rich vein from the event for some really great sales leader insights.

And so one of the things that was covered in that dinner, which I found super fascinating, was just kind of this challenge that leaders have had in high performing sales organizations where there’s been a bit of a whiplash where there was free money falling from the sky and budgets were huge and it was tough getting new sales individual contributors or reps into your team because there was so much competition. And then we’ve kind of whipsaw to the complete other direction and there’s just a lot of the ground beneath us doesn’t feel all that stable. And the challenge of having a high performing functioning team to manage in a sales environment where things are changing and there’s a lot of challenges is difficult. And so first I want to get your view on that idea and that challenge and has it been a challenge for you that you’ve seen? And what are some of the things that you’ve seen that have been effective in marshaling people through a difficult time?

Malcolm Smith:

Sure. Yeah, I mean it’s a great topic to consider. I think a lot of the factors you just outlined are absolutely at play. I would say it’s probably always a challenge to hire great people and retain top talent, but the economic conditions we’re dealing with now make it more pronounced. It is more risky to market with lower quality talent. I think in the past you were able to cover things up to some degree just by the size of your team or some other aspects, but now absolutely it does come back to those fundamentals. So I think for me, in my experience, I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I’ll be the first to admit, that’s probably where I learned most of my lessons. I think when I joined the leadership side of sales dev, I had come from being a really high performing rep myself and there were some aspects of translating that into a leadership role that I had to learn.

So I think first and foremost, it always comes down to hiring. Are you hiring correctly? And that’s an easy thing to say, but there’s a few things that I think need to be super apparent. Number one, in today’s market, I no longer buy into the idea that SDR is a gateway to everything and maybe the case at one point, but it’s just not anymore. And the reality is because it’s a tougher market to sell into, the additional incentive outside of your comp is the career progression. And if you’re not very motivated to be in a closing role at some point be an ae, what have you, you’re likely not going to enjoy the learning side of the role. And that’s true in my world. I would say across the board though, that’s the case with everyone. If there’s no outcome beyond the compensation, I struggle to see where the incentive structure really works.

So when we talk about hiring, are you hiring this person because they have potential or are you hiring them because they actually can execute? And I think those are some of the conversations that I would have a lot previously where it was like, well, this person doesn’t maybe want to be in sales, but they just have so much potential and we were willing to make an investment there. I think now the reality is we have to look at it through the lens of well, we’re making an investment in you for this role and the next role and we want it to have some semblance of progression because again, without that I’m not going to get you to do the things necessary now and how much more difficult I think outside of that also when we talk about culture, and this is a lesson that I had to learn extensively, what type of leader are you?

And if someone is just good, are they going to be good with you? I think there are certain types of leadership that can be adaptable, but there are certain folks that, for example, myself, I skew way more tactical. I like to get in the mix. I came from that world. I didn’t have an operations background, I had a sales background. So there’s a lot of aspects to how I manage and how I lead and my vision that certain folks when they buy into it, it’s awesome. I get the most out of them. There are some folks that candidly I don’t do as well with. And that’s one of the things I’m learning a lot more recently is am I being honest with myself of can I be the best leader for this person? I can recognize greatness on another team potentially. It’s like, Hey, you know what?

Our styles are likely going to clash and I’m not going to get the most out of you. And now I’m more mature and humble enough to suggest I can’t actually manage everyone. So again, that kind of goes into the discussion. We give salespeople the best salespeople disqualify. I disqualify candidates a lot and I’m very much not only looking for high performing reps, just kind of like in an abstract sense, but also are they going to mesh with my vision and my system? It’s not for everyone. And I think now more than ever, and I was so happy to be joined with so many great enabling folks at that dinner because it used to be the case that sales needed to partner really well with marketing. I still think that’s absolutely the truth, but now, way more so than ever, we need to be partnering with enablement. The best salespeople have to be experts. I mean, they have to have something valuable to say, and that goes back to the performance culture. If I can’t equip you to go to market and having intelligent things and valuable things, compelling things to share with the prospects and potential partners, I’m setting you up to fail and then that’s going to reinforce a negative culture and that’s where people look to escape. So I think there’s a lot there. Kind of unpack that. That’s my take kind of off the rip.

Mark Lerner:

Yeah, I mean first of all, that’s I think very insightful take and one that resonates with me and I’m sure a lot of people when we talk about building a high performing, high functioning team, sales team kind of have to define what high functioning, high performing is to what is dysfunction as compared to functioning. I think that the kind of level that we held high performance up to has probably reverted to a mean meaning it’s gotten higher, but for a long time we were okay with performance that wasn’t at the same level because of the things we talked about. But in your mind, what is the gold standard of a high functioning, high performing sales team, especially in this environment?

Malcolm Smith:

Are you asking from perform an outcomes perspective?

Mark Lerner:

I guess I think that there’s the outcome and there’s also the team perspective. So you can have somebody who’s performing really well, but if it kind negatively affects the larger team, it has a kind of net negative effect. So I think kind of talking about both.

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, no, it’s fair. I think you’re going to run into that a lot, especially if you’re managing a type personalities we tend to do in the sales world, you can’t necessarily look, at the end of the day, you have to make decisions that’s best for the business. That’s the reality, right? If you’re a steward of capital, if you have a responsibility of people and responsibility to a number, ultimately you need to make sure the machine is still running and the ship is still sailing. So when you make decisions, you have to look at it through that lens. Within that, it’s hard for me to see a world where I’m going to tolerate a brilliant jerk and that’s going to benefit the company. Potentially you’re in complete survival mode. But I mean at that point you’re probably worried more force fires to worry about. But yeah, I think if you’re getting to the point about culture itself, you can’t allow a negative person who’s not following process to influence the culture.

There are going to be some aspects to people who can operate outside the rules, let’s say, and be successful, but that success in a lot of ways is usually myopic and it’s looked at through a single lens, potentially just the results. A lot of times you’re not going to be able to measure in real time the impact of these other things that may are costing you more than the results do. So I think it’s a few things. Accountability is a word we get tossed around quite a bit, but it’s a real thing. So much of leadership is just setting the stage for accountability. And what I found for myself candidly is that I actually have to spend a lot more time ensuring that I’m holding myself accountable to hold other people accountable. It’s very easy for me to drift off into the support role of I’m going to look at the problems you’re having performing and just try to adopt them on my own and try to solve them with you, which I think is proactively correct, but generally we need to start from a place of, do I even know why you’re doing this?

How am I going to hold you accountable if I don’t understand your end state? And then beyond that, I can’t have anyone be larger than the program, so I can’t allow a situation where someone is going to not follow a process, not follow the rules, and then that influences the team to think, well, I can do that as well. I think that’s how you hold the standards and a lot of that is just leading by example. If I say I’m going to do something, I need to do it. If I show that it’s okay to do that, what’s going to happen? It’s small things too, right? I hear this from a lot of senior leadership. I don’t know why BDRs don’t turn their cameras on, bet you their leader doesn’t, right? It’s small things like that. We talk about showing up prepared for a one-on-one, I have to make a point myself to do that, right?

I shouldn’t just show up and wing that with a rep. I wouldn’t want them doing that with me and I certainly don’t want them doing that with their counterparts and sales at the AEs example. So it’s a lot of leading by example and understanding when we’re talking about accountability, what are we holding people to and y and what is that X factor that’s really making you want to do that. It is enormously hard to convince someone to do something that is not in their own interest. So you have to figure out, well, how am I going to blend these two worlds together now extensively if they’ve agreed to work, et cetera. There is an implicit contract there, but even more there’s a daily reinforcement of accountability and understanding. I think you just need to make sure that your level setting this, hopefully that answered your question.

I think going back to the initial part, you can’t just look at results. It’s a big factor. You do have to look at those leading indicators and falling process, but at the end of the day, sales is virtually, or I guess we are in virtue of the fact that it is very much a results oriented role. We allow someone to perform and cost the company money or risk market share, whatever. And what that’s suggesting is, hey, you might not be a bad person. I mean you’re never a bad person, rents business, but this might be a bad fit for you as a role. That’s okay. Maybe there’s other things that we can look at, but yeah, realistically you got to be hitting your number, but the way you get there, that has to be good as well.

Mark Lerner:

Right. And so you mentioned this word process a lot in your description there, so I think that’s a good thread to pull on. What level of top down or structured process is kind of the best or your ideal state? So there are people that have a very, very prescriptive process that you have to A, B, C, it has to fill in this field exactly at this time. And then there are others that maybe are a little bit more laissez-faire, as long as kind of the broadly speaking, you go through these checkpoints in your style, what is the kind of happy medium?

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, I mean it’s a great question. I think a lot of it is going to depend on the maturity curve of your org is at the things that are acceptable in a series A or PC is going to be way different than a series D or I post IPO. I think the larger you are the more you have to rely on process because you can’t scale yourself infinitely. So in those types of organizations, especially if you’re accountable to Wall Street or public investors, that you’ve got to be really tight. You can’t miss things and process realistically is just de-risking the probability of outcomes. The more thorough your process, the more likely the things are going to happen the way you want them to, and that’s important for certain orgs. For other places that might not be the priority. It could be growth at all costs, which wast the case for many words for many years.

I think there’s a few levels. It also depends on your own risk profile for control. I actually am okay with delegating to some extent and not having complete control over everything. Another word I would introduce is expectation. I mean I have a process for sure, but I also have expectations and I think when process gets in the way of expectations, in my view, go with what your gut tells you as far as what the commander’s intent is. If I give you an instruction and you look and say, you know what? The way you’re telling me to do this and the way I think I need to do it are different, do what you think is going to work within the confines of what is accepted, what is expected and what is allowed. I tell reps a lot, Hey, there’s a line walk right up to it, just don’t cross it.

And so in my world, it’s going to come down to things like this. Certain works are going to say, Hey, you can never ever hit somebody on a personal cell phone, just can’t allow it. Or you might have some words that are very GER compliant. They’re global. We got to be really careful about where lists et cetera come from. Some places not right. I am okay with folks doing more creative outreach tactics to some degree I’ve heard of some crazy stories of people sending 99 cents on Venmo to get in front of people. There are some orgs that would say, absolutely not. You can never do that. Right? So you have to know where that line is and then what is my expectation?

Mark Lerner:

That’s a very interesting wild, wild Venmo somebody and they show up on their phone and then you kind of send an email, Hey, did you get the 99 cents? Yeah, exactly. Sales folks at home. It’s a good hack. I like it.

Malcolm Smith:

Actually, I think it was they sent 98 cents and they’re like, I want your 2 cents or some cute little, you could work on the messaging. But yeah, it was genius. But again, I mean you have to put that into context of what is the ultimate goal, what am I expecting to happen after I do that? Now again, if you know your business, and this goes back to hiring correctly, if I know that my target audience is going to appreciate a message like that, go for it. If you’re selling into a super regulated space where there may be like you got six heads, if you do something like that, then you should know better and that kind of ties into the high performance, high performance. Is your mindset correct? Are you analyzing your business correctly? Can I trust you to connect the dots and come to a conclusion that’s reasonable? So yeah, I think that’s a big part of it’s like what is the expectation and how well do you interpret and downline what your commander’s intent is?

Mark Lerner:

I like that a lot. So shifting the gears a little bit, I think we live in a time where we were in a mode where every team kind of got their pick of whatever tools they wanted. The budgets were kind of whatever you wanted, and that’s been pulled back a lot. I think I suffered from this, which is every problem has a tool solution rather than maybe a process solution, but to what level is a high performing team bound by? Does technology play in that as opposed to the other factors of process and strategy and all those things? Is technology kind of high on the list or is it super low on the list?

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, it’s a great question. I think, or again, I learned by making mistakes. Early on I was a geek for tools I loved, as a matter of fact, a lot of my early knowledge and leadership came from taking demos and just learning about everything. Shout out Kenny Traer. I don’t know where he is at now, but he was at SalesLoft and that guy helped me out a ton, but I always looked at tools as being the place where you start, you take the tool that’s the best piece of equipment and then you build a process around it, which is, I mean it is okay in certain ways really. I think it’s kind of in the middle. You don’t want to wait too long to introduce an accelerant, which is really what a tool should be. What you need though is you need to have a defined process conceptually first.

So the analogy I would use is like is it okay to just give a kid a graphing calculator without them knowing how to do the math? Probably not. They won’t be able to tell when the maybe is not giving them what it should be, and you can extend that analogy however you need to, but the idea of being, if we don’t, for example, understand well what volume are we talking about? How aggressively outbound are we going? How aggressively inbounded we need to bid? Are we doing a B? Are we doing any? If you don’t have that, then spending money willy-nilly on tools is not a great play. But I don’t also think you need to wait too long because the starting, if you get too deep into a process and you haven’t adopted a tool, well now you actually might be costing the company money. You might be allocating resources and doing things at a place where if you just had a hammer, you get these nails in the wood a lot faster kind of thing. So you do need to identify that fairly quickly. So guys coming back to center, it’s like I would introduce a tool when I’ve noticed that there is a process that was yielding results and I’m confident that accelerating or adding to the efficiency of that process would get more results, more not nonlinear way. Of course, spend and budget comes into play as well. Yeah,

Mark Lerner:

Yeah, I think so too. I mean I think that I also suffered from the same thing. For me it was product hunt. I would just go on product hunt and I would geek out on all these tools. I think that the introduction of AI has is a blessing and a curse, and I wonder if you see it similarly because I would imagine in the world in which you operate, these tools could be used well and they could be used very poorly. I’ve been on the receiving end of poor use of these tools from outreach as a prospect I guess where it’s just laziness and you’re not even trying, what are the rules? What are the guardrails that you say, especially when it comes to AI where everyone has access to chat, GBT or copilot or whatever to write their cadences or where’s the rule book or Sure, yeah,

Malcolm Smith:

It’s a great kind microcosm of a lot of discussion because it is very powerful and everyone can kind see it. I say it sometimes, not a perfect analogy, but it’s like when the internet first came out, we could see a lot of value. It’s not totally defined yet, but it’s there. So many cliches we’re going to roll through right here, but it’s the case, right? With great power comes great responsibility, go right Uncle Ben with it. But look, AI is not going to make a bad rep. Great. It just won’t, not on its own maybe help marginally but remains to be seen. I think if you know what you’re doing, it is just going to make you better. If all comes back to again, what is the expectation you have? I would say this, people’s expectations of what a good email looks like is infinitely higher now. Now anyone can theoretically write a good email.

What I like is when people are thinking about the real problems and understanding, well, what are some we can do now that we couldn’t do before? So ai, can it copyright for me? Yeah, it can. That is going to help me to some extent, but if we start analyzing the costs, I bet you it’s not really worth this spend. Where it does help potentially is in role play. If I can start programming an AI to emulate a buyer really effectively, well now I can train and what I’m thinking about is how much does it cost me to pull AEs out of sales meetings and have them run role place versus having the bot do it. See the thing is the cost of a cold email, it’s not that high anyway to some extent pulling people into meetings, cross-functional work, bringing enablement, making decks, I mean that’s expensive.

That’s the value add in my mind. So it comes back to what are the use cases you’re deploying these tools against and what is your expectation for outcome? The reality is we have no real tools that do that. Well, I know I’m going to get hit on LinkedIn and say, no, you’re wrong. We have a million tools that do that and here it is, but okay, fine hit me. But generally speaking, if I don’t have a tool in my tool stack that addresses this problem, it’s worth the extra spend. I can de-risk some aspect of my go-to-market strategy now. Great. What I would say is this, you have to dedicate some time as a professional to keeping your skills sharp. Part of that should be experimenting in your lab with ai, play around with it and see what works. I think a lot of people need to adopt a more experimental mindset when it comes to things. Do a test. You don’t have to just buy a tool and roll it out to everybody all at once. Do an AB test and try to understand, I want to prove that X does what now we have some data to work with. We can justify going a little bit further. Again, it’s all about just de-risking decision making when it really comes down to it.

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, I think there’s so many great things you can do with it, but you just got to prove it out.

Mark Lerner:

Yeah. I think that when automation started coming up and making its way into every department, there were probably similar conversations. Well, we’ll just automate it, but if you aren’t smart about the rules you set for those automations, one wrong decimal and a thousand people are getting the wrong email or whatever. You know what I mean? And I don’t know about you. I’ve certainly been responsible for situations that you’ve got. Early on in my career there was that thing from, what was it, HBO max or something where they had an intern accidentally send an email to 5 million people. So those risks were there and so I wonder if it’s all part of the same thing where these are tools that could be used for good and can be used for bad, and how do we incentivize people not to use them for bad? So I guess that brings me to maybe one of the last things we could cover in terms of high performing teams and how you can be a functional leader in one of those organizations is incentives. In my opinion, humans are kind of just the incentives that we have are basically kind of what guide us, right? It is certainly in a sales environment that’s even more so obviously ideally everyone wants to be incentivized for the ultimate goal of the company, which is increased revenue, but that differs from organizational organization.

How do you find are the best ways to incentivize? What are the realistic kind of incentives that you can set that push people to go to that next level, whether they’re a lower performer and they need to get to an acceptable level or they’re a high performer and you want them to even go even further?

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, it’s a great question. I don’t even know if I have all the answers. I think incentive structures go even beyond the business or there. There’s biological realities from an evolutionary perspective around this, so it’s pretty deep. I’ve seen it both ways and again, I’ve come from the world as an iced, so I understand the two realities here. Labor is expensive. It’s probably the most expensive line item you’re going to have on a budget. I am frankly of the opinion that we should be paying people as much as we possibly can. Not only am I going to get more out of you, but I also know provided some things like financial literacy, what have you. If you don’t have to worry about things at home, then I know I can have you focus at things at work. Whenever I have a situation where folks are like, and I’ve seen this, people consult whatever.

How much should we pay a BDR here or how much should we pay an AE here? I’m like, well, if you try to cut as much out of that as possible, I think you’re going to open it up to a lot of issues and you’re going to constantly have these remuneration discussions. You’re going to constantly have people looking for a little bit more and then I can get awkward really quickly in my mind, but again, I understand it. You got to keep your labor costs reasonable and it’s the variable component. I think a good simple commission structure is key. If it’s too complex and unfortunately some products, you’re just going to have to have a complex structure. You got a lot of skews, whatever it is, but the simpler you can make it, the better, especially when folks feel like they have an ability to control it.

Now, again, going back to hiring, I would hire people that are financially motivated. I think it’s just easier candidly, but if you are the type of person that doesn’t want to hire that way, if you’re company culture is different and you’re not only fixated on that aspect of it, then you have to build a plan that allows for a spectrum of folks to be successful. If it’s not just in my tc, maybe it’s in their career dev we were talking about earlier, but maybe it’s more than that, and this is getting into another topic of before I even think about incentives, I want to understand your underlying why do we even do any of this?

Yes, conceptually you got to pay your bills, all that stuff, that’s great, but remove all that. One of the questions I ask new hires, I get my first one-on with them is like, if you could do anything and you didn’t have to worry about money, what would that be and why? I really want to understand what is making you tick? What is your internal value system and how do I take the comm structure that I have and fit it for you into whatever you’re trying to do? And it could be anything. You could want to take care of your parents. It’s actually a common one. A lot of reps are like, Hey, my parents did so much for me. They were working class growing up. I want to pay off their mortgage. We can do that. We can build the math that adds so much more tangibility and now the incentive is so much more personal and we can put it into context and I think that’s so important, but there’s a lot of creative ways you can go about it. I think ultimately my main thing though is people have to feel like what they’re doing is valued and worth their while, especially to go above and beyond. If you get someone who’s doing the same role for many months, many years, what is their incentive frankly, to do more? It has to be built into that either explicitly from a remuneration standpoint or implicitly from the holistic standpoint.

Mark Lerner:

And I really like that model that you mentioned about getting to the core reason. It’s like, let’s get beyond the BS and saying, my goal is purely focused on the company. Everyone has their own incentives that motivate them, and I love that idea about helping pay off your parents’ mortgage as a way to set the carrot as it were, to increase productivity and being effective. I actually had this conversation with someone earlier today, and I think it was brought up in the event we went to, but there’s these two concepts, two polls of how people want their employees or their workers, people within their organizations to think about the company. There’s the model of we’re all family, which I’ve always had a problem kind of fully accepting, and then there’s one would say kind of the opposite extreme, the Netflix model. We’re a sports team, you’re just as good as your last game or whatever. I would imagine that when you deal with folks in a sales organization, they’re a little bit more realistic and maybe are like me and don’t buy into the family thing as much as others might. How do you walk that fine line where it’s not like you’re expendable, but also we don’t really expect you to believe that we’re as important as your parents?

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, I totally agree. I’m so much closer to the sports side. I understand where the family thing came from. I think it was candidly, my reaction to that is that it of itself was a mindset reaction from the world of like, you are an employee, you are a number, you do not matter. I mean that was the prior state, so to some degree maybe it was almost healthy to move away from that and reject it completely and say, no, you’re so important. You’re part of our family, but when it comes down to it, you can’t really get fired from your family. I hope not. So we have to be reasonable around that. I think there are certain roles in departments outside of sales, which is extremely performance oriented or you probably could get away with that because what that’s suggesting to me is we value you more than just what you do and you are part of something larger than yourself and we are going to accept your quirks, flaws and idiosyncracies and work with you, which I do think is great.

I mean that’s the idea of inclusion and diversity and all these different things. We are looking for a spectrum of talent and people we’re not going to be biased and exclusionary in any way. I’m totally with that, but the other side of it is when it’s a sales role and you need to produce an outcome reliably, consistently, that is where I’m more on the team side of like, Hey, if you’re not scoring points, you’re not going to help us win games. And then you’re putting everything at jeopardy. And again, if it’s going back to hiring, if they don’t see that and get that, then I probably wouldn’t hire ’em in the first place. But the other important thing, and this is real talk, someone who’s very motivated in that world and understands the sports analogy and is okay with it, as a leader, I’m okay that if you want to go play somewhere else and it’s better for you, I’ll help you get there.

I have to accept that. I think it would be unfair of me to say, no, I have to keep you here doing this one thing, so good at it, spread your wings and fly baby. If that’s the role and it’s not here, then that’s part of it. I think that’s an important thing. It’s like it is business, it’s not personal and I wish you nothing but success and anything you do next and I’ll help you get there if it makes sense. And now I can turn that back into an incentive and where that pops up a lot in my world, people who want to be AEs or SDR managers themselves, those roles, ae roles were common definitely. But SDR manager is rare and a lot of places aren’t going to hire a rep right into management. They’re going to want know that you released had some experience closing business, so you might literally have to look external for that.

I’ve gone through that. I’ve helped people get external roles and effectively leave the company, but that’s okay because I was getting the most out of in exchange. So yeah, I definitely skew more towards the team side and I think it’s important because all the same analogy sort of work and you can align everyone around winning the championship, what are the pieces we need in order to do that? And everyone plays a role there, so it allows you to celebrate the process and celebrate the incremental success. Everyone is part of the championship. Even the support staff that doesn’t take the field. We can appreciate everyone, rev ops, we can appreciate enablement because without them we wouldn’t be able to win. I think that works super well. Yeah.

Mark Lerner:

Yeah. Alright, well I really appreciate your time today. Awesome. Super fascinating going on this journey with you. Before we leave, why don’t you tell the folks at home where they can maybe learn a little bit more about you, kind of connect with you out there in the socials if you have any.

Malcolm Smith:

Yeah, I mean the best places for me is LinkedIn, just linkedin.com. I think it’s what in Malcolm j Smith. I was lucky to snag that early. So there it’s, yeah, I’m actually right now if I can do a little plug. I’m hiring BDRs in New York City hybrid one day a week in office. So if you’re curious, you want to see what the future of sales development looks like, I’m evolving. It really as we speak, come be on the cutting edge. I’m excited to work with you.

Mark Lerner:

Malcolm, thank you so much for taking the time today and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Malcolm Smith:

Definitely.

Mark Lerner:

Bye.