Culture & Compliance Chronicles: Of Puppets and People—Humanizing Ethics & Compliance with Fraser Simpson

At a glance: Click the links below to advance directly to the corresponding sections of the transcript:

• [1:45] Getting to Know Fraser
• [5:12] How Speak Up Turned into Something Bigger
• [7:38] How a Puppet Helped to Create Human Connection to Compliance & Ethics
• [13:53] How Connie Helps Employees Sharpen Their Compliance Decision-Making
• [15:54] Making Decisions at Speed
• [19:32] Use of Technology & AI to Support Governance
• [24:50] Key Takeaways

Nitish Upadhyaya: Welcome back to the Culture & Compliance Chronicles, the podcast that gives you new perspectives on legal, compliance, and regulatory challenges faced by organizations and individuals worldwide. The clue is in the title—culture is at the heart of everything. It’s the endlessly shifting patterns that govern our environment and behaviors. The magic is in amplifying certain patterns and dampening others. Let’s see if we can pique your curiosity, get you to challenge some of your perceptions and give you space to think differently about some of your own challenges. I’m Nitish Upadhyaya, and I’m joined by Richard Bistrong. Hello, Richard.

Richard Bistrong: Hello, Nitish.

Nitish Upadhyaya: How’s it going?

Richard Bistrong: All is well. Last time we were out recording with Camilla Kring. So, Nitish, who do we have joining us today?

Nitish Upadhyaya: Today, we are delighted to be welcoming Fraser Simpson. Hello, Fraser.

Fraser Simpson: Hi there, Nitish. Great to join you.

Nitish Upadhyaya: We are really, really excited to have you with us. We’ve had some fascinating conversations over the last number of months on everything from leadership, taking decisions slowly rather than at a rapid pace in today’s very, very fast-moving universe. We’ve talked a little bit about your charity background and the work that you’ve done there and, of course, the ethics and compliance creative stance you’ve taken at Wellcome Trust. So, I want to take listeners on a journey, from puppets to people, and your ideas of making governance more human. So, we’ll demystify all of that in a little while, but let’s do a rapid-fire round to help the audience get to know you a little bit better. Give us three things they should know about you.

[1:45] Getting to Know Fraser

Fraser Simpson: First of all, I am a lawyer by background. I’m an unusual lawyer though because I’ve worked in the not-for-profit sector both in integrity and also now in strategy. I lead strategy at the Wellcome Trust, which is one of the world’s largest philanthropic foundations. I’ve really come to see strategy and integrity as being real partners: strategy about choosing where we play and how we win—or in my world, how we have impact—and integrity about what gives those choices legitimacy and longevity. And really, one without the other is sort of weak. Second, I see ethics failures as often not being about people not knowing rules. It’s often good people just simply being under pressure—and when speed increases, when pressures and incentives around them grow, there’s less space to pause. Even the most well-intentioned, smartest, most capable people can make decisions they might later look back on in hindsight and think differently about. And I think thirdly, I am really deeply interested in how we design for human beings in moments that matter and not creating all of the corporate stuff that goes with it: frameworks, policies, spreadsheets, matrices. I’m really interested in the more human side, the cultural side, the psychology, the creativity, the leadership, the belonging, and the impacts and influence that each of those can have shaping individual and collective behaviors when it matters.

Nitish Upadhyaya: Well, there’s lots for us to dive into through the rest of this podcast. Before we get there, what’s one thing that you’re curious about?

Fraser Simpson: Endlessly curious. I think at the moment, I’m most curious about human judgment, especially under pressure—been thinking and writing a bit about that, as you know. And I guess my premise is that human judgment is an increasingly scarce resource. I think the ability to pause, to think clearly, and act with integrity is getting more important, and I think it’s also getting much harder to do. With all the competing pressures and incentives, I think behaviors can drift and normalize, even without a conscious choice to be doing the wrong thing. I think the same goes in group settings with tolerating bad behaviors that are seen in a group setting. And I think, for me, I’m curious because so many people see culture as something that grows out of policies, frameworks, procedures, and all those tangible things, but I see it as something that really shows up when time is short, or when someone’s uncertain about something, or when somebody feels uncomfortable about speaking up. And what I really want to understand more about is how organizations and leadership can deliberately protect that space.

Nitish Upadhyaya: And then what’s the last thing that surprised you?

Fraser Simpson: Largely everything surprises me. But I think what surprises me most after 20-plus years of being a lawyer is how often professionals—I guess whether they’re in legal or risk or strategy—focus on being technically accurate, but quite often stop short of asking how their work will actually change behaviors, and don’t do the piece of designing their outputs to be actually used by real-life human beings. For so much of our work to be effective, you’ve got to connect with people that have to act on it and engage them. That’s where things like story telling can help. Clear language helps. Visual helps. And I think you can be creative there. And as you’ve mentioned, I’ve used puppetry there before to really open conversations that might otherwise have been closed because the language around them is scary or formal or legalistic, and normal human beings don’t want to engage in that.

[5:12] How Speak Up Turned into Something Bigger

Nitish Upadhyaya: So, let’s start there. I know your most recent role started with a focus on speak-up—one potentially isolated segment in a bigger compliance program, in a bigger organization, but it quickly expanded because, as you say, human behavior doesn’t sit in these neat policies and procedures or places that maybe the architecture of an organization wants us to go. Tell us why it needed to develop into something different.

Fraser Simpson: I took on responsibility for developing what at Wellcome we now call our speak-up program, which really was designed to be an intentional evolution and humanizing of whistleblowing. I think there’s a couple bits that are interesting. One is that we were trying to do that at all in a not-for-profit because, of course, it’s very easy to characterize a not-for-profit as being a “good organization” where only good things happen. There’s another whole podcast in there around the halo effect of good organizations. But we’re an organization of 1,000 people, and in any organization of 1,000 people, you need mechanisms to enable people to raise concerns for accountability to be exercised. And I think it could have been really tempting to construe that task in a really narrow way—make sure we had all the standard stuff that every organization has for whistleblowing: reporting lines, protections, policies, processes. All of them, I would argue, are completely essential, on their own insufficient to drive the sort of change that we were wanting, which was to drive a culture where our people would feel safe enough to raise their concerns so that we could act on them to improve the organization and to mitigate problems before they became really serious. And so, it was obvious to me that if we treated speak-up as just being a procedural or mechanical mechanism or framework, we’ve missed the whole point and we’ve missed the whole benefit of it as an organization, because our people are our best radar, and so, we want to hear from them—why on earth wouldn’t we? It can be, when done well, a really strategic advantage. We realized that the things we wanted people to be talking to us about, as you mentioned, aren’t things that neatly fit into functional silos. They’re not just legal issues or HR issues or compliance issues. They’re ethical, reputational, cultural, and, frankly, probably all of those all at once: the sorts of issues that tend to grow in the gaps between functions rather than neatly within them. It became clear to me that, as a legal team, we weren’t going to solve fraud risk just by solely business partnering with the finance team, for example.

[7:38] How a Puppet Helped to Create Human Connection to Compliance & Ethics

Nitish Upadhyaya: So, you took that concept, and I know you’ve done something rather exciting to really bring it to life: to go from policies, procedures, architecture to something more than human in fact. For those of you who are unfamiliar with your partner in crime, will you give us a bit more background about Connie? I know you did a great podcast with Christian Hunt on this topic, so we’re not going to rehash all the details—and we’ll link to that in the show notes—but give us the quick version because we want to build on that for some of your most recent insights.

Fraser Simpson: Happy to. And, yes, the start of this is, of course, once you see ethics as being a challenge around how you exercise human judgment and not just tick-box compliance, the question you have to answer is, “How do you get that stuff to land in human brains and not just on bits of paper?” And the answer is human engagement. So, we needed to come up with a solution of how we get human beings to engage with something that’s important but quite dull: a code of ethics. And we created Connie to be that mechanism for landing in human brains. Connie is a character. Connie’s a metaphor for your conscience: a hot pink-colored puppet who is humane but without the baggage of being human. Very intentionally non-threatening, inclusive, a little bit playful. We designed and introduced Connie to the organization as a new colleague, a new hire. And in doing that, we gave ourselves permission to be really creative in how we could drive ethical engagement. We established this clear conscience reference point with a guiding toolkit of five simple ethical questions, but really, we’re only asking our colleagues to remember to ask themselves in moments that matter, “What would Connie do?” It’s simple, but, most importantly, it’s really actionable and powerful, and it creates space for individuals to exercise judgment, and that’s something that policies and rules alone can’t do.

Everybody gets excited about the puppet, because, of course, who wouldn’t? But—don’t tell Connie this—it’s not actually about the puppet. It’s really about how you make human connection where otherwise there wouldn’t be any. And so, every organization would have its own different method of connecting with its people: whether that’s through rhetorical devices in language, whether it’s through cartoon or song or dare I say through contemporary dance—whatever it is that makes a connection with your people. But there’s a method of doing that, and you can do that in a creative, engaging way that will make this stuff that would otherwise be boring but important really land.

Richard Bistrong: That is really incredible. And I watched Connie before our interview today, and what a lovely employee avatar, so to speak, that you created. So, two questions. Sometimes, when we think of animation or puppetry, we think that there’s a certain comedic value behind it and it doesn’t mean to take it too seriously, but yet, it’s quite a serious subject that you’re dealing with. So, was there some reticence about using Connie, thinking that people won’t take the subject matter seriously enough? And the other part of the question is: What’s been the biggest impact of Connie?

Fraser Simpson: You’re absolutely right—it’s a question we grappled with quite a lot at the outset, which was: How do we make this not be childish or ridiculous? Before we actually designed what Connie would look like, we designed what we wanted people to feel as a result of seeing or engaging with Connie. Yes, we wanted playfulness, but we didn’t want to detract from the seriousness of the topics that we were going for—so, we were looking for trustworthiness, and ability to engage. If we look at other similar sorts of puppet characters, we were after more of a Kermit than we were a Miss Piggy: to enable that to be a trusted but humane voice that we could work with. And so, we worked very hard to generate that. But I think it goes really quite deeply, because not only does the character have to look and feel that way, but the ongoing communication has to be that way. And so, we have to be very careful about how Connie speaks and what they say to be able to very consistently play that out over time.

Richard Bistrong: And what’s been the biggest impact? How have you seen behavioral change from Connie?

Fraser Simpson: It’s an interesting one because we thought up front about, “Well, how are we going to measure impact here?” It’s pretty hard, I think, to do that in a quantifiable way. What I wanted to do was to set out a not very scientific success measure, which was around sparking conversations. We wanted to spark conversations that otherwise wouldn’t have happened, and if that’s happening, I would feel it was a success. And we have seen that: whether that’s me overhearing people in the lunch queue in the canteen asking what Connie would pick, or whether it’s being invited into departmental meetings to talk about things because Connie has opened the door with a little bit of fun, with a little bit of humanity into a subject that otherwise would have been pushed away. And I think that’s really been so valuable. It’s done that also outside of Wellcome, frankly, because on social media, people have seen this and it’s started all sorts of conversations. But beyond that, it’s given us the ability to play with a little bit of what you might call marketing real estate because we have a character that exists—there is a physical Connie in the office—that we can do things with. So, we’ve been able to send Connie on secondment off to different departments, which, of course, sparks conversations. We’ve been able to have Connie involved in marking the scripts in the annual charity quiz. We’ve even had Connie join an audit and risk committee meeting. You can’t quite quantify the difference that that makes in a meeting, but you can feel the difference. It’s somewhat strange when an inanimate object makes a difference in the tone of a meeting, but actually, it can be quite real.

Nitish Upadhyaya: What seems to have come out of that, from our conversations at least, is this kind of sharpening of intuition for starters. Not only are they talking about Connie, and not only are they talking about this larger-than-life character, but also, some of the actual deeper discussions around compliance gray areas. You talked a lot about training that muscle. Give us a bit more of a sense of how that’s come about and maybe some of the actions or behaviors that have resulted in that. So, we’re going from interaction with Connie to actual behavior as it relates to code of conduct or compliance.

[13:53] How Connie Helps Employees Sharpen Their Compliance Decision-Making

Fraser Simpson: Yes, absolutely. And I am a great believer that judgment isn’t something that you can just turn on as soon as you enter a crisis—it’s something that you’ve got to build and practice over time. What I see so often in organizations is that ethics are treated like that annual refresher that you get a badge for or a compliance moment rather than an institutional or an individual capability that you need to keep up to speed. We’re taking the same approach interestingly now in the strategy function, because, again, strategic stuff, it’s not something that you just turn on in a moment. We’re running sessions there that we’re tongue-in-cheek branding as “Strategy Night Live” to help teams develop the strategic thinking muscle rather than the ethical thinking muscle. What we did in practical terms was to say, “Well, if we got Connie this character, what can we do differently here to help train the ethical muscle that isn’t just, ‘Do an annual click here’?”

We created a thing that we’ve branded as Connie’s Ethics Gym to help colleagues really practice pausing, thinking, and talking things through in their own minds actually before the pressure’s on, in a safe space. What that looks like, in practice, is a monthly multichoice dilemma email—because Connie’s a colleague, Connie has an email address—sent from Connie’s email address to them. It’s all about applying exactly the same set of five ethical questions every time but training your mind to do it. Staff do it—we’ve made it voluntary rather than mandatory, but we get a huge response rate. And in return, staff get immediate feedback. They get to see where their score is in relation to everybody else in the organization. But then, really importantly, they get a worked example back written by Connie, and that gives us the ability, in fun language, to be able to play out the context and nuance that says, “Well, this might be okay. But if this, and in that context, then this.” And being able to unpack that, I think, can help people to understand that it’s very rarely a, “Can I?” yes-or-no binary situation, but they can really see that they need to make a choice and then hold themselves accountable for that choice as they go forward.

[15:54] Making Decisions at Speed

Richard Bistrong: This is a fascinating topic. And thinking about my former commercial self, speed and judgment was not an ally—that did not have a happy ending. We have the system one/system two, fast/slower thinking—and slower thinking being more informed, deliberate with ethical outcomes. I’d like to hear your thoughts about that, and is Connie helping people to slow down?

Fraser Simpson: To be clear, I’m not anti-speed at all—I’m very pro-speed, in fact, but I’m pro-speed safely. I’m sort of the seat belt of the decision-making world. I think speed is absolutely not a bad thing. It drives progress. It unlocks inertia. We absolutely need to operate at speed. What I find difficult is when speed turns into momentum and decisions start to make themselves without the space for human judgment to be exercised within them. And I think that’s where we need to be really clear for the type-one thinking, that there is space to bring out the challenge within choices. Where it’s really important, where there are implications, where people might get hurt, it’s not good enough that choices are made because they’re already underway and that there hasn’t been the space to challenge them. I think that’s why the space matters: the space to pause, the space to surface challenges, the space to really pull out those second- and third-order questions, and to do that before the pressure builds. I think there are plenty of other pressures as well, by the way—not just speed. Human judgment is this increasingly scarce resource as everything’s getting faster, more pressurized, more exposed in this increasingly volatile world that we’re in—for leaders, the choice has to be: Do they want to intentionally build cultures that protect that space? The choice to give people permission to pause and ask, “What would Connie do?” or, “Is it okay?” to me, that has to be the right thing to do, as opposed to let momentum take us into places where decisions are made yet accountability still remains and people haven’t actually taken those choices.

Richard Bistrong: This is such a fascinating topic. If I come to London, I’d love to arrange coffee with Megan Reitz, who wrote…

Fraser Simpson: That would be brilliant.

Richard Bistrong: …Speak Out, Listen Up, because her whole premise now is you have to create that spaciousness in advance.

Fraser Simpson: Yes. I talk about it as pre-race checks. We’re living in this ever-speeding-up race, so in that sort of world, you can only rely on what you’ve done in advance. So, do your pre-race checks and get those right if you know that you’re in a fast race.

Richard Bistrong: Speed safety—I’m going to hashtag that.

Nitish Upadhyaya: Richard, you and I spoke a couple of months ago at the SCCE Conference around crisis management, and one of our top tips was make sure the information environment you are going into for a crisis has been curated, so that in a crisis, people feel happy to speak up. You’re already ready to get the right information rather than in the middle of a situation that could completely topple your business, or your reputation, finances, whatever, then saying, “Oh, why are people not giving me the information I need to react to a situation?” It’s all about that hygiene beforehand and shaping that environment. We talk about speed, decision-making, and judgment. One of the things that has really come to the forefront in the last couple years is the use of technology in the client space. So, again, same potential issues regarding speed, judgment. Can you share some of your own experiences with using technology in compliance?

[19:32] Use of Technology & AI to Support Governance

Fraser Simpson: Completely agree with you. And all of the above shapes how I think about tech in the compliance space at the moment. And it’s developing faster than any of us seem to be able to imagine, which is extremely exciting, particularly when you think of analytical capabilities, but I think there are some pretty fundamental risks if we’re not careful, if we’ve not done our pre-race checks. If tech simply accelerates processes and volume of things, we might just sink in data and noise. There’s also risk around tech and AI creating illusions of certainty without space for challenge. I think there’s huge opportunity and excitement, but also, very much space for us to pause and think. And we need to be pretty clear that tech in this space, I think, has to support human judgment and not replace it. We need to be thinking along the lines of, “Does this tech actually help people to think better, or is it encouraging them to think less?” If it’s the latter, it’s a problem; and if it’s the former, then, great, let’s push that forward.

An example—and it’s a pretty low-level example—we did a little experiment with what we’ve playfully called iConnie, a Teams-based chatbot of Connie. And it’s a chatbot that wasn’t intended as a replacement for human decision-making, but it was a policies signpost, so something that could really help surface direction and prompt better questions from our colleagues but wouldn’t enable them to abdicate their ethical thinking away. We could’ve tried to develop a chatbot that told you the right ethical answer: “Can I accept? or, “What should I do?” Aside from the fact that I was worried that it would give us the wrong answers, actually I think there’s a pretty fundamental concern around what that means if you enable people to abdicate ethical decision-making to tech. If you enable people to simply say, “Well, the computer said I could,” that gets you to a really difficult spot. What you’ve got to be doing is saying to people, “Actually, this is your choice, and you’ve got to be accountable for it.” By all means, use the technology to help you, but it’s got to help you—you can’t just say, “Well, the computer told me to, so I did.”

Nitish Upadhyaya: It’s a question that, I think, not everyone has taken a pause to consider, right? Because they are running, they want to be adopting AI, or they’ve been given the mandate, “This is what we do now.”

Fraser Simpson: Exactly, and so many of the pressures and incentives are forcing that. That’s the race conditions that are coming through—they don’t want to be left behind. They want to be winning market share. They want to be the leaders. They want to be the first to develop.

Nitish Upadhyaya: A lot of innovation for me comes out of ring fences that you put around people. You create inordinate amount of risk if you just say, “Go do things.” And so, a little bit more of an idea around what your risks are, where you could end up, and then, how do you harness this in the right way is absolutely the direction of travel. I’m intrigued to see over the next couple of years whether or not these situations play out in the way that we think they are: potentially bigger blow-ups and bigger risks that are scaled almost because of the AI, just as much as the scaling of efficiency and accuracy that we are getting at the moment.

Richard Bistrong: Fraser, asking you to put your legal hat on for a minute here. What about the whole use of AI more generally with respect to governance? It seems like that’s a rapidly moving target. So, from an in-house perspective, what does that look like right now?

Fraser Simpson: I agree, and I think it’s a really interesting one. We have started doing a little bit of thinking about it in terms of how AI can support better governance. And that’s one of the rationales behind bringing together a network of for-purpose organizations in the U.K. that are looking at potential use cases for AI in improving charity governance—but frankly, the same could apply in any other sector; all organizations need governance. That really came from the sense that across our sector, purpose-driven organizations are experimenting. They’re often doing so quite cautiously or visibly cautiously, perhaps invisibly recklessly—who knows?—and largely in isolation. And what we wanted to do was to say, “Well, actually let’s create a safe space that’s sector-led, where people can actually think about how AI can genuinely support better trusteeship and governance, and going beyond just the mundane. So often, I talk to people and I say, “Well, how’s AI showing up in your governance?” They say, “We use this new thing to produce minutes for us.” I’m like, “Great. Well, go beyond the production of some really poor minutes and actually think about how we could use this.” Because, I think, there are some really interesting use cases perhaps around the identification of blind spots, around challenging assumptions, around understanding real-time board dynamics, and encouraging better conversations, all the while, of course, being really alive to those risks we’ve talked about around bias, around overconfidence, around hallucinations. To link it back to Connie, I think what stands out, for me, is that a bit like Connie, the technology is just the tool. The real value’s actually how you apply that tool to improve human judgment. So, whether it’s a puppet or whether it’s AI, this is all about how do you API it with a human being.

[24:50] Key Takeaways

Nitish Upadhyaya: That is a wonderful way to wind down the conversation because the idea of interfacing with the human being, really being deliberate about that side of, you’re right. As Richard said, it could have been a gimmick—it could have been a humorous, fun little thing that lasted for a month or week doing anti-bribery training, whatever it is. And it hasn’t—it’s pervaded because there was thought, there was attention paid to the culture of the organization and the way in which they would react. That’s my big takeaway as we wrap this up—and I’m sure Richard will have his own in a second—is that something that seems outlandish at one organization might work perfectly well for another context, but you’ve got to really put the time in to understand your people. Be creative, sure—not create a gimmick, but something that’s actually going to last and is going to continue on. I’m sure after you move into a different role or whatever else, Connie will be there and it will be very much part and parcel of whatever the organization is doing—it’s baked in now. What about you, Richard? What’s your big takeaway?

Richard Bistrong: This has been such an informed and helpful discussion, and I love that the theme that runs throughout this discussion, is: How can we help people exercise their own human judgment—not replace it with something? So, when I think about Connie, when I think about your discussion of AI, it’s all about how we can help people be the best that they can be and not to have something there to replace their good judgment. For any type of training, I think the most important part of it is that it’s memorable and that it’s relatable, and you’ve done such an amazing job at making Connie relatable and something that is top of mind. And the fact that there’s been all this social media activity around her, now you couldn’t take her away even if you wanted to—so, really, Fraser, it’s so impressive. Thank you for spending time with us.

Fraser Simpson: Oh, thanks. Too kind. Thank you.

Nitish Upadhyaya: And, Fraser, as we draw to a close then, do you have advice for our listeners?

Fraser Simpson: Yes, I do—I’ve got three bits of guidance. First, my perspective is that ethical culture is absolutely emotional and human, not just procedural. You can have all the right policies, frameworks, everything you’d like, but if they don’t work for human beings in moments that matter, they’re not going to be effective. So, design for human beings. Second one: you can’t instruct a culture into existence. You’ve got to design that. That takes time, healthy habits, stories, shared language, and exercising judgment within that is a learned capability. Again, it just takes time, and you’ve got to do it intentionally. And the final one, which is really important to me, is that creativity and human connection shouldn’t ever be seen as nice-to-haves. To me, they’re signals of confidence, authenticity, and seriousness about how people make decisions. They underline leadership—they don’t undermine it. And that, to me, is why puppets and people are really important—it’s about that connection between creativity, engagement, and human beings and behavior.

Nitish Upadhyaya: For all aspiring ethics and compliance folks, as well as leaders in that field, I think they should all be pinups for something to be really borne in mind, given the state of the world at the moment. Some really great prescriptions for adding the human touch and making an impact. So, thank you so much, Fraser, for your time, wisdom, all of the good things, and great sound bites as well. I’m sure listeners are going to want to connect with you and find out a little bit more about what you’re about, and continue to delve into your thinking. Where can they do that?

Fraser Simpson: Yes, please do reach out on LinkedIn. I love connecting with people. I’m the only person on LinkedIn with a pink puppet beside them in the photograph, so relatively straightforward to find: Fraser Simpson. But also, encourage any of your listeners who are interested in the work we do at Wellcome to check out our website—we’re at Wellcome.org, “Wellcome” with a double L. As I said, a fascinating global foundation. We spend about 1.8 billion pounds a year funding science to solve urgent health challenges for everyone, and there’s an awful lot of interesting stuff around why we exist on the website.

Nitish Upadhyaya: Plenty of amazing stories that you’ve already given us. I’m sure you will swap some more with listeners when they connect up with you. Thank you again, Fraser, for all of your time.

Fraser Simpson: Pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Nitish Upadhyaya: Thank you all for tuning in to the latest episode in our Culture & Compliance Chronicles series. For more information about our series and any of the ideas discussed today, take a look at the links in our show notes. You can also subscribe to the series wherever you regularly listen to podcasts, including on Apple and Spotify. Amanda, Richard, and I will be back very soon for our next chapter. If you have topics you’d like us to cover or novel perspectives you want everyone else to hear about, get in touch. Thanks again for listening. Have a wonderful day and stay curious.

Show Notes:

• Fraser Simpson, LinkedIn
• Wellcome Trust
• The Human Risk Podcast, “Fraser Simpson on Making Ethics Engaging”
• Civil Society, “Fraser Simpson: What would Connie do?”
• Acteon, "Meet Connie, your conscience"