Category Archives: CEO

Are You a “Challenging” or Simply a “Difficult” Direct Report?

Most managers, save for true sycophants, want to challenge their boss.  Few managers want to be puppet yes-people to the boss.  They’ve worked hard to get where they are.  They bring years of wisdom and experience.  They want to push and challenge.  But many don’t know when or how.  More importantly, they don’t know what they don’t know.

How often do you think you’re challenging the boss when he/she thinks you’re just being plain difficult?  Challenging direct reports keep their positions and rise with the organization.  Difficult ones get jettisoned along the way.

There are two great ways you can figure out how often you’re being which:

  • Think of things from the boss’s perspective
  • Ask the boss

Think from the Boss’s Perspective

Bosses want to get things done.  Things generally fall into two buckets:  easy and hard.  Easy things may still entail a lot of work and planning, but there’s nothing really conceptually difficult or unknown about them.

Running the company’s presence at a tradeshow you attend every year might be a lot of work, but I’ll consider it easy for this conversation because that work is known.

Deciding to terminate a problem employee is easy.  (Note inclusion of word “problem.”)  If you see a problem, the adage goes, everyone else has probably already seen it for months and the damage done is more than you know.  This decision is hard from a personal perspective — I’ve never met anyone who enjoys terminating people.  But firing someone who routinely misses deadlines, training sessions, and team meetings isn’t hard in this context.

Launching the new version of a product is easy.  Yes, the positioning may be hard, but managing the overall launch process is easy.   It’s hopefully done a few times per year.  Yes, it’s a lot of work and planning, but there’s nothing conceptually difficult about running the process.

Difficult direct reports make easy things hard.  How?

  • Complexification.  When you ask someone the time you discover that there are three types of people in the world:  those who tell you the time, those who tell you how to build a watch, and those who tell you how to build a Swiss village.  Simplifiers go far in organizations, complexifiers get stuck.
  • Lack of follow through.  Bosses want to talk once about a project, agree to it, and then have it get executed.  As my friend Lance Walter always said bosses want “set it and forget it” direct reports.  If you have a question, come ask.  But otherwise I assume you are tracking our agreed-to objectives and they’re going to happen without me having to check and re-check.  Ditto for feedback given along the way.
  • Drama.  Difficult directs tend to take things personally.  They turn criticism of work into criticism of them.  They view a heavy workload as dramatic sacrifice and not a prioritization problem.  They are sensitive to criticism, defensive when questioned or given feedback, and often unable to separate bad performance from bad intent.

The result is that over time the boss starts to loathe the idea of meeting with the direct report which results in a downward spiral of communication and relationship.

Challenging direct reports keep easy things easy.  They get shit done without a lot of supervision, complexification, or drama.  On the flip side, challengers don’t just go along for the ride when it comes to inherently hard things like fixing a break in the sales pipeline, selecting company or product strategies, or working on a competitive campaign strategy.  They weigh in, sometimes challenging the majority or consensus view.  They provide good arguments for why what everyone else is thinking could be wrong.  Their selective Devil’s advocacy helps the company avoid groupthink and the organization make better decisions.  And they do this without going overboard and positioning themselves as the resident contrarian.

Simply put, when you say something to the boss or in a meeting, imagine how the boss will react and then count the ratio between the following two reactions

  • God, what a pain in the ass.
  • Wow, I hadn’t thought of that.

Ratios above 1.0 indicate you are a net difficult direct report.  Ratios below 1.0 indicate you are a net challenger.

Ask the Boss

Since knowing is always superior to guessing, I’ll give you a set of good questions that can help you figure out where you stand.

  1. If you had to rank your direct reports from top to bottom in terms of difficultly, would I fall above or below the median and why?
  2. Can you please list 3-5 things I do that make it difficult to manage me so I can work on them?
  3. To what extent do you find me difficult/contrarian for difficulty’s sake vs. genuinely challenging ideas and helping the company reach better decisions?
  4. When it comes to strategic debates do you feel that I sit on the sidelines too much, participate too much, or strike a good balance?
  5. If there is a pattern of skipped/cancelled 1-1’s (a sign of avoidance) or higher frequency 1-1’s with other directs, then ask why?

Sycophants know they are sycophants.  Challengers usually know they are challengers.  The risk is that you are a difficult when you think you’re a challenger — and that rarely ends well.  So think about, ask, and take appropriate measures to correct the situation.  Before your boss doesn’t want to talk to you anymore.

Myths of the Headless Company

In the past year or so, two of our competitors have abruptly transitioned their CEOs and both have perpetuated a lot of mythology about what happens and/or will happen in such transitions.  As someone who’s run two startups as CEO for more than a combined ten years, been the “new guy” CEO twice after such transitions, sat on two startup boards as an independent director, and advised numerous startups, I thought I’d do a little myth-busting around some of the common things these companies say to employees and customers when these transitions happen.

“Everythings’s fine, there is no problem.”

If everything were fine, you would not have changed your CEO.  QED.

Houston, there is a problem.

“Uh, the actual problem is we’re doing too well, … so we need to change our the CEO for the next level of growth.”

This reminds me of the job interview response where you say your biggest weakness is perfectionism.

Look, while successful companies do periodically outgrow their executives, you can tell the difference between an organized scale-driven CEO swap out and something going wrong.  How?

Organized transitions are organized.  The CEO and the board agree that the company is scaling beyond the CEO’s abilities.  A search is started.  The new CEO is found.  The old CEO gracefully hands the reins over to the new CEO.  This can and does happen all the time in Silicon Valley because the problem is real and everyone — both the VCs and the outgoing CEO — are all big shareholders and want what’s best for the company, which is a smooth transition.

When a CEO is exited …

  • Abruptly, without notice, over a weekend, …
  • Without a replacement already identified
  • Without even a search firm hired
  • At an awkward time (e.g., a few days before the end of a quarter or a few weeks before the annual user conference)

You can be pretty sure that something went wrong.  What exactly went wrong you can never know.  But you can be sure of thing:  the conversation ended with either “I’m outta here” or “he’s (or she’s) outta here” depending on whether the person was “pushed’ or “jumped.”

“But we did need someone for the next level of growth.”

That’s quite possibly true and the board will undoubtedly use the transition as an attempt to find someone who’s done the next level of growth before.  But, don’t be confused, if the transition is abrupt and disorganized that’s not why the prior CEO was exited.  Something else is going on, and it typically falls into one of three areas:

  • Dispute with the board, including but not limited to disagreements about the executive team or company strategy.
  • Below-plan operating results.  Most CEOs are measured according to expectations set in fundraising and established in the operating plan.  At unicorns, I call this the curse of the megaround, because such rounds are often done on the back on unachievable expectations.
  • Improprieties — while hopefully rare — such as legal, accounting, or employment violations, can also result in abrupt transitions.

“Nothing’s going to change.”

This is a favorite myth perpetuated on customers.  Having been “the new guy” at both MarkLogic and Host Analytics, I can assure you that things did change and the precise reason I was hired was to change things.  I’ve seen dozens of CEO job specs and I’ve never a single one that said “we want to hire a new CEO but you are not supposed to change anything.”  Doesn’t happen.

But companies tell customers this — and maybe they convince themselves it’s true because they want to believe it — but it’s a myth.  You hire a new CEO precisely and exactly to change certain things.

When I joined MarkLogic I focused the company almost exclusively on media and government verticals.  When I joined Host, I focused us up-market (relative to Adaptive) and on core EPM (as opposed to BI).

Since most companies get in trouble due to lack of focus, one of the basic job descriptions of the new-person CEO is to identify the core areas on which to focus — and the ones to cut.  Particularly, as is the case at Anaplan where the board is on record saying that the burn rate is too high — that means cut things.  Will he or she cut the area or geography that most concerns customer X?  Nobody knows.

Nobody.  And that’s important.  The only person who knows will be the new CEO and he/she will only know after 30-90 days of assessment.  So if anyone tells you “they know” that nothing’s going to change, they are either lying or clueless.  Either way, they are flat wrong.  No one knows, by definition.

“But the founder says nothing’s going to change.”

Now that would be an interesting statement if the founder were CEO.  But, in these cases, the founder isn’t CEO and there is a reason for that — typically a lack of sufficient business experience.

So when the founder tells you “nothing is going to change” it’s simply the guy who lacks enough business experience to actually run the business telling you his/her opinion.

The reality is new CEOs are hired for a reason, they are hired to change things, that change typically involves a change in focus, and CEO changes are always risky.  Sometimes they work out great.  Sometimes the new person craters the company.  You can never know.

 

 

 

CFOs: More Strategic Than Ever

I was digging through my reading pile and found this about nine-month-old report by Accenture and Oracle entitled The CFO as Corporate Strategist by Donniel Schulman and David Axson of Accenture.  Those who follow Host Analytics might remember David Axson as he’s spoken at several of our user conferences.  (Note:  the 2015 conference is May 18-21 — save the date!)

The overall theme of the paper is that the traditional “bean counter” positioning of CFOs is as outdated as the hula hoop, with CFOs becoming more strategic over time, and partnering with the CEO to run the company.

Here’s one chart from the report that shows just that:

cfo influence

We definitely seeing this trend with our customers at Host Analytics.

As I’ve always said, “CEOs live in the future,” so if CFOs want to partner with them, they are going to de-emphasize a lot of their backwards-looking role and join their CEOs in the future.  This means automating and delegating backwards-looking functions like consolidations and reporting.  And it means getting more involved with both financial planning & analysis (FP&A) and their cousins in the various “ops” teams springing up around the organization — e.g., salesops — who also do lot of planning, modeling, and scenario building.

Thoughts on Hiring:  Working for TBH

One of the most awkward situations in business is trying to recruit someone who will work for to-be-hired (TBH).   For example, say you’ve started a search for a director of product marketing, have a few great candidates in play, only to have your marketing VP suddenly quit the company to take care of a sick parent.   Boom, you’re in a working-for-TBH situation.

These are hard for many reasons:

  • Unknown boss effect. While your product marketing candidate may love the company, the market space, the would-be direct reports, and the rest of the marketing team, the fact is (as a good friend says) your boss is the company.  That is, 80% of your work experience is driven by your boss, and only 20% by the company.
  • Entourage effect. Your top product marketing candidate is probably worried that the new marketing VP has a favorite product marketing director, and that they’ve worked together through the past 10 years and 3 startups.  In which case, if there is an entourage effect in play, the candidate sees himself as having basically no chance of surviving it.
  • False veto effect. You may have tried to reassure product marketing candidates by telling them that they will “be part of the process” in recruiting the new boss, but the smart candidate will know that if everybody else says yes, then the real odds of stopping the train will be zero.

So who takes jobs working for TBH?  Someone who sees the net gain of taking job the job as exceeding the risk imposed by the unknown boss, entourage, and false veto effects.

That net gain might be:

  • The rare chance to switch industries. Switching industries is hard as most companies want to hire not only from within their industry (e.g., enterprise software) but ideally from within their category (e.g., BI).  For example, Adaptive Insights recently hired president and CRO Keith Nealon (announced via what is generally regarded as among the most bizarre press releases in recent history) despite an open CEO position and ongoing CEO search.   Nealon took the job joined from Shoretel, a telecommunications company, and offered him the chance to switch (back) into enterprise SaaS and switch into the hot category of BI and EPM.
  • The rare chance to get a cross-company promotion. Most companies promote from within but when they go outside for talent, they want to hire veterans who have done the job before.  For example, when LinkedIn needed a new CEO they promoted Jeff Weiner from within.  When ServiceNow needed a new CEO and didn’t find anyone internally who fit the bill, they didn’t hire a first-timer, they hired Frank Slootman, who had been CEO at Data Domain for six years and lead a spectacular exit to EMC.  By contrast, when Nealon joined Adaptive Insights, it offered him the chance to get promoted from the GM level to the CXO level, something not generally seen in a cross-company move, but likely enabled by the working-for-TBH situation.
  • The rare chance to get promoted into the TBH job. Sometimes this is explicitly pitched as a benefit to person working for TBH.  In reality, while this rarely happens, it’s always possible that the new hire does so well in the job – and it takes so long to hire TBH – that the person gets promoted up into the bigger job.  This is generally not a great sign for the company because it’s a straight-up admission that they viewed the working-for-TBH hire as not heavy enough for the TBH job, but eventually gave up because they were unable to attract someone in line with their original goals.

Who doesn’t take jobs working for TBH?  Veterans — who, by the way — are precisely the kind of people you want building your startup.  So, in general, I advise companies to avoid the working-for-TBH situation stalling the next-level search and hiring the boss first.

Making the working-for-TBH hire is particularly difficult when the CEO slot is open for two reasons:

  • E-staff direct reports are among the most sophisticated hires you will make, so they will be keenly aware of the risks associated with the unknown-boss, entourage, and false-veto effects. Thus the “win” for them personally needs to offset some serious downside risk.  And since that win generally means giving them opportunities they might not otherwise have, it means an almost certain downgrading in the talent that you can attract for any given position.
  • New CEO hires fail a large percentage of the time, particularly when they are “rock star” hires. For every Frank Slootman who has lined up consecutive major wins, there are about a dozen one-hit wonders, suggesting that CEO success is often as much about circumstance as it is about talent.  You need to look no farther than Carly Fiorina at HP, or any of the last 5 or so CEOs of Yahoo, for some poignant examples.  Enduring a failed new-hire CEO is painful for everyone — the company, the board — but no more group feels the pain more than the e-staff.  Frequently, they are terminated due to the entourage effect, but even if they survive their “prize” for doing so is to pull the slot-machine arm one more time and endure a second, new CEO.

Why, as CEO, I Love Driver-Based Planning

While driver-based planning is a bit of an old buzzword (the first two Google hits date to 2009 and 2011 respectively), I am nevertheless a huge fan of driver-based planning not because the concept was sexy back in the day, but because it’s incredibly useful.  In this post, I’ll explain why.

When I talk to finance people, I tend to see two different definitions of driver-based planning:

  • Heavy in detail, one where you build a pretty complete bottom-up budget for an organization and play around with certain drivers, typically with a strong bias towards what they have historically been.  I would call this driver-based budgeting.
  • Light in detail where you struggle to find the minimum set of key drivers around which you can pretty accurately model the business and where drivers tend to be figures you can benchmark in the industry.  I call this driver-based modeling.

While driver-based budgeting can be an important step in building an operating plan, I am actually bigger fan of driver-based modeling.  Budgets are very important, no doubt.  We need them to run plan our business, align our team, hold ourselves accountable for spending, drive compensation, and make our targets for the year.  Yes, a good CEO cares about that as a sine qua non.

But a great CEO is really all about two things:

  • Financial outcomes (and how they create shareholder value)
  • The future (and not just next year, but the next few)

The ultimate purpose of driver-based models is to be able answer questions like what happens to key financial outcomes like revenue growth, operating margins, and cashflow given set of driver values.

I believe some CEOs are disappointed with driver-based planning because their finance team have been showing them driver-based budgets when they should have been showing them driver-based models.

The fun part of driver-based modeling is trying to figure out the minimum set of drivers you need to successfully build a complete P&L for a business.  As a concrete example I can build a complete, useful model of a SaaS software company off the following minimum set of drivers

  • Number and type of salesreps
  • Quota/productivity for each type
  • Hiring plans for each type
  • Deal bookings mix for each (e.g., duration, prepayments, services)
  • Intra-quarter bookings linearity
  • Services margins
  • Subscription margins
  • Sales employee types and ratios (e.g., 1 SE per 2 salesreps)
  • Marketing as % of sales or via a set of funnel conversion assumptions (e.g., responses, MQLs, oppties, win rate, ASP)
  • R&D as % of sales
  • G&A as % of sales
  • Renewal rate
  • AR and AP terms

With just those drivers, I believe I can model almost any SaaS company.  In fact, without the more detailed assumptions (rep types, marketing funnel), I can pretty accurately model most.

Finance types sometimes forget that the point of driver-based modeling is not to build a budget, so it doesn’t have to be perfect.  In fact, the more perfect you make it, the heavier and more complex it gets.  For example, intra-quarter bookings linearity (i.e., % of quarterly bookings by month) makes a model more accurate in terms of cash collections and monthly cash balances, but it also makes it heavier and more complex.

Like each link in Marley’s chains, each driver adds to the weight of the model, making it less suited to its ultimate purpose.  Thus, with the additional of each driver, you need to ask yourself — for the purposes of this model, does it add value?  If not, throw it out.

One of the most useful models I ever built assumed that all orders came in on the last day of quarter.  That made building the model much simpler and any sales before the last day of the quarter — of which we hope there are many — become upside to the conservative model.

Often you don’t know in advance how much impact a given driver will make.  For example, sticking with intra-quarter bookings linearity, it doesn’t actually change much when you’re looking at quarter granularity a few years out.  However, if your company has a low cash balance and you need to model months, then you should probably keep it in.  If not, throw it out.

This process makes model-building highly iterative.  Because the quest is not to build the most accurate model but the simplest, you should start out with a broad set of drivers, build the model, and then play with it.  If the financial outcomes with which you’re concerned (and it’s always a good idea to check with the CEO on which these are — you can be surprised) are relatively insensitive to a given driver, throw it out.

Finance people often hate this both because they tend to have “precision DNA” which runs counter to simplicity, and because they have to first write and then discard pieces of their model, which feels wasteful.  But if you remember the point — to find the minimum set of drivers that matter and to build the simplest possible model to show how those key drivers affect financial outcomes — then you should discard pieces of the model with joy, not regret.

The best driver-based models end up with drivers that are easily benchmarked in the industry.  Thus, the exercise becomes:  if we can converge to a value of X on industry benchmark Y over the next 3 years, what will it do to growth and margins?  And then you need to think about how realistic converging to X is — what about your specific business means you should converge to a value above or below the benchmark?

At Host Analytics we do a lot of driver-based modeling and planning internally.  I can say it helps me enormously as CEO think about industry benchmarks, future scenarios, and how we create value for the shareholders.  In fact, all my models don’t stop at P&L, they go onto implied valuation given growth/profit and ultimately calculate a range of share prices on the bottom line.

The other reason I love driver-based planning is more subtle.  Much as number theory helps you understand the guts of numbers in mathematics, so does driver-based modeling help you understand the guts of your business — which levers really matter, and how much.

And that knowledge is invaluable.

A Note to the CEO: Drive the Board of Directors

I remember during my first year at Cal we’d sometimes see a local band, Psycotic Pineapple [sic], who performed a song entitled “The Devil has Work for Idle Hands.” Every time they sang the chorus, audience members would hold their arms above their heads and dangle their crossed hands as they danced. Keep that scene in mind as we head into today’s post about CEOs, boards of directors, and the relationship between them.

While I don’t claim to have any particular gift in “managing” a board, I have learned a bit over the years by being a CEO, sitting as independent director, and chatting with other CEOs, venture capitalists, and independent board members.

Before discussing the board/CEO relationship, let’s define a framework first.

What Is The CEO’s Job?
The CEO’s job is to run the company, set culture, and manage the relationship with the board.

Setting culture means defining, communicating, and living the norms you want to establish inside the organization.  Running the company means setting strategy, putting the team in place to execute that strategy, letting that team do its job, and keeping everyone communicating along the way.

What Is The Board’s Job?
I’ve often quipped that the board’s job is to meet 4-6 times per year to decide if it should fire the CEO.  While overstated, it captures my belief that the board should have no operating responsibility because the board’s job is governance.

The board should question the management team on operations and discuss the team’s answers.  The board should oversee and approve financial audits, operating plans, compensation plans, bonuses, officer appointments, stock option grants, financing rounds, long-term obligations (e.g., leases), and M&A transactions.

Why Do Boards Exist?
Let’s go back to business school 101.  From first principles, boards are needed because of absentee ownership — i.e., when the owners of a company are not the operators of a company they hire agents (all employees, including the CEO) to run the company for them.  To oversee those agents, and protect against agency problems, the company creates a board of directors.

Note that in Silicon Valley startups, the absentee owner assumption is less true than in corporate America because ownership is both concentrated and well represented on the board.  Founders and VCs together might own 70-80% of company and sit together on the board.   While the VCs are absentee in the sense that they don’t work at the company, the founders typically do.

Governance = Discussion plus Approval
I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, governance is about two things:  discussion and approval.  For example, when people first see a company’s board minutes, they are typically shocked because they appear devoid of content.

On January 5, 2011, persons A, B, C, and D from the board of directors met at 10:00 AM at the Company’s headquarters in Palo Alto, California.  Mr. Smith, the VP of sales presented the sales results for 4Q10 and the forecast for 1Q11 including a discussion bookings, revenues, forecast accuracy, lost deals, and pipeline coverage.  The board asked numerous questions of Mr. Smith and a vigorous discussion followed.

But they’re not saying what the forecast is?  Or who asked what question?  Or what the sales results were?  All the facts are missing!  But they aren’t.  The facts the law cares about relate to whether the board did its job.  It convened.  It met with management.  It asked questions.  It had a vigorous discussion.

The content of the discussion matters less, primarily because in business you have the right to be wrong.  It’s not a crime to start a company that sells three-headed elephant dolls; it’s just a bad idea.  The law isn’t going to go anywhere near trying to decide what’s a good idea or a bad idea – that is left to business judgment.  The law wants to ensure that oversight is happening — that the board is meeting and the business is being discussed.

While it might seem quaint, this notion of discussion is so strong in the law that board decisions made without an opportunity for discussion (e.g., not at a duly called meeting, but over an email chain) must be made unanimously.  (As an aside, misunderstandings about when such resolutions became effective were a part of the option backdating scandals of the 2000s.)

The Direction Paradox
While discussions, challenges, advice, and questioning are always good, when boards give operational direction (i.e., “you should do X”) they risk creating a paradox for the CEO.  It’s easy when the CEO agrees with the direction and in that case the direction could have been offered as advice and still would have been heeded.

It gets hard when the CEO disagrees with the direction:

Case 1:  If the CEO follows the direction (and is correct that it was wrong), he or she will be fired for poor results.

Case 2:  If the CEO fails to follow the direction, his or her political capital account will be instantly debited (regardless of whether eventually proven right) and he or she will eventually be fired for non-alignment as the process repeats itself over time.

In case 1, the CEO will be surprised at his termination hearing.  “But, but, but … I did what you told me to do!”  “But no,” the board will reply.  “You are the CEO.  Your job is to deliver results and do what you think is right.”  And they’ll be correct in saying that.

Once caught in the paradox, weak CEOs die confused on the first hill and strong ones die frustrated on the second.

Because the paradox is only created when boards give specific direction (i.e., “you should do X”), I think boards should generally refrain from so doing, and prefer questioning, challenging, brainstorming, and advice-giving to directing.

A Wacky Idea for Resolving the Direction Paradox
As a gamer, I have a simple but admittedly impractical idea for solving the paradox.  The CEO and the board each start with three credits.  Each time there is a disagreement on a major issue if the CEO goes against the board he instantly burns one credit.  If he is eventually proven right he gets 3 additional credits back.  The system separates major from minor conflict (“are we talking credits here?”), empowers to the CEO to make the decisions he/she believes in, reminds the CEO that going against the board is costly, but rewards him/her for the gumption to do so if they are eventually proven right.

A Better Idea for Managing the Whole Situation:  Drive the Board!
But there is a better way to handle the problem.  Why does the direction paradox happen?  I think for many good reasons:

  • Board members want to be helpful
  • Board members want to make an impact
  • Board members want to participate, not just sit and experience death-by-PowerPoint at every board meeting

In the past 6 months, three different VC ecosystem types have told me something akin to the following:

“You know, I love Joe, the CEO of company X.   You know why?  Joe is in charge.  Unlike most CEOs, Joe sends out his board deck 4 days early.  Then he calls me to make sure I’ve reviewed it and to ask if I have any questions.  So he’s both holding me accountable for doing my job and he’s speeding up the (boring) operational review part of the board meeting.  So the board meetings largely become discussions about important topics.  They don’t always take the full three hours, so sometimes I get to leave early, but they always energize me and let me contribute.  Heck, the craziest thing about Joe is that he’s got me working for him.  I leave the board meeting with 10 action items that can help the company and Joe calls me the next week and the week after to make sure I’m doing them.”

Joe has clearly taken control of the situation.  Joe knows the board has energy and wants to help.  And Joe learned from Psycotic Pineapple that idle hands are dangerous.  So Joe channels the board’s energy the way he sees fit, controls the situation, engages the board, and wins their esteem in the process.  That is clearly a better way to manage the situation.

Framing the Board Relationship
The other thing that Joe got right was framing the board relationship.  Many, many CEOs see their board as a tax, a group that takes time, saps energy, and distracts from running the operations of the company.

Joe has reframed things:  he has framed the board not as a tax, but as a value creation partner.  This is another smart move that sows the seeds for a healthier long-term relationship among the board, the CEO, and the whole executive team.

And if you don’t get the framing of that relationship right, your board might end up singing one of Psycotic Pineapple’s top songs:   I Wanna, Wanna, Wanna, Wanna, Wanna, Wanna, Wanna Get Rid of  You.