 It's time for us to raise some questions. The main question is, when does delivery really drive design? And to discuss that, I want to invite a very special guest for me, because his book, Designing Effective Organizations, was my bedside book for years during my master. And you know, when we think about life is so unpredictable, I never thought in my life that I would have the chance to introduce him. So Professor Henry Mintberg is a Clegg Horne Professor of Management at McGill University. With more than 20 books published, his work reinforces the emphasis of emerging strategy, which arise informally at any level in an organization. For me, it's with great honor, OK? Very humble to introduce Professor Mintberg. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Thank you. Please. I'm going to start with an announcement that you may think that Ricardo is Brazilian, but it's actually not true. And I have definitive proof, because everything starts on time here. And if you've been to Brazil, you know, nothing ever starts on time in Brazil. They put the Indians to shame. So this is a bit of a, at least to this point, a bit of a Roger and Henry show in the sense that I'm going to say things that are very, very similar to what Roger said. And really what this is is the revenge of the Canadians. We're in New York, which is the hometown of the American president. And we don't know how to get back at this guy. So Roger and I are sort of executing our revenge here in terms of saying things together. You can say that Roger formulated the grand vision at 9 o'clock in the morning. And I'm executing or implementing his grand vision with more detail about strategy. My only complaint with Roger, and I think it's an important one worth mentioning, is that he used the word top management quite a bit, as does everybody. And I think that is archetypal machine paradigm. I think the machine, if anything, represents the machine paradigm. It's this idea that we have managers on top and managers at the bottom. And I always say to people in companies, if you don't say bottom management, you shouldn't be allowed to say top management. Nobody ever says bottom management. So other than that, we're all together. There's something interesting happening at the conference here, I think. And that is it's sort of going two ways. It's kind of not dividing necessarily, but there's two perspectives that are coming through. And I think what Roger and I, some others talking about exploration and exploitation and so on and projects are doing is promoting that kind of different paradigm. But I think other people, even though they're proposing different kinds of changes, have very much bought into this formulation implementation belief. And from way back, I really questioned it. Now, if you ask, and it's already been said, when a strategy fails, what gets blamed? And the answer is almost always formulation, right? Nobody blames. Sorry, I mean implementation. Nobody blames formulation. It's always implementation that gets blamed. And I always thought it's maybe because the people who are doing the blaming are the formulators. And they're saying to the other people, we formulate this brilliant strategy, and you dumbbells were not smart enough to implement our brilliant strategy. And if the dumbbells were smart, they would turn around and say, well, if you're so smart, why didn't you formulate a strategy that we dumbbells were capable of implementing, right? Which means by definition, every failure of implementation is a failure of formulation. Because after all, you're not formulating in general and the abstract. You're formulating with the reality you're dealing with. If you look at Schrump, as I remember his name, who had a Daimler, and he talked about the perfect strategy, the Daimler combining with what he called Chrysler, at the time, was the perfect strategy. Well, there's no perfect strategy. But that perfect strategy failed because it happens that Daimler couldn't connect with Chrysler the way he wanted them to. So we have to be careful about using terms like formulation and implementation. I think they have their application. I'll mention that in a minute. But we have to be careful about that. So let me talk about that. I'm going to go back to Peterson Waterman's famous book in Search of Excellence. And they told this wonderful story of bees and flies. And they said, if you take an empty bottle with the cap off and the thing open, and you put the bottle against a window, you'll notice something interesting. The bees are smart. The bees know that when you're in trouble, you head for the light. Because if you're in a beehive and there's a fire or something goes wrong, you head for the hole. You head for the light. So the bees are in this bottle trying to get out through the light, which is, of course, against the window. They know about light, but they don't know about glass. And you ever watch a bee on a window? They just don't get it. They just don't get it. They keep forcing themselves out. The flies are dumb. They're the dumb bells. They don't know glass. They don't know light. They don't know anything. So they go every which way. And inside of a few minutes, the flies have liberated themselves and the bees are committing suicide. And the moral of this story, which was not in the Peterson Waterman book as such, is that we have too many bees making strategy and not enough flies. In other words, we have too many smart people making strategy who haven't adapted to the world as it's changed and are still functioning in the world as it has been. And that's essentially why the existing company never gets the new technology. Because they're the bees. They're being run by bees and not being run by flies. So let me propose two models of strategy. One I call thinking first, which is, of course, logical. You think in order to do, right? How can anybody argue with that? Well, I'm going to argue with that. Because strategic planning, which is classic thinking in order to do, almost never works as a formal process. Strategic planning is an oxymoron. It's a word in which the two words don't go together. And there's been so much failure of strategic planning. This is what we know about strategy, OK? The chief executive is the strategist, right? Strategy comes from the top, right? I mean, what's the top, exactly? What's top about top management? I mean, if you see yourself on top as a chief executive, like, how can you connect to the ground? I mean, the customers, the workers, everything that matters is there. It's not here. It's not up in the 80th floor. It's down on the ground. It's happening on the ground. But we have this idea that strategy comes from the top. And by the way, transformation, which is another thing somebody said this morning, usually fails too. If you read the most prominent model of transformation from John Cotter, it's as if every single step comes from the top. Every single step comes from the chief executive. I think that's because he's been at Harvard and Harvard trains these people. So they don't think about anybody else. So everything comes from the top. Strategy is defined as a detailed plan for reaching a goal or objective. These strategies have to be formulated carefully and articulated explicitly so they can be implemented systematically and the problems are in implementation. And then you have to think about strategy in order to create good strategies. That's the model. And here is the first book that articulated it, the Anzalf model of strategic planning. If you go through that, there's not one single word about how to formulate strategy, not one single word in that whole model. It's all about goals and objectives and budgets and all kinds of wonderful things. Nothing about creating strategy. Gary Hamill said it best, I think, the dirty little secret of the strategy industry is that it has no model for creating strategy. Aside from that, it's great. So strategic planning is an oxymoron. So let's try another model, which is strategy formation, not formulation. Strategies form. They don't just get formulated. They form as doing first. And doing first means you act in order to think or in bright line vocabulary you deliver in order to design. And I call that strategic learning as opposed to strategic planning. Now, how can that be? By the way, there's a third model, which is a kind of combination model, which I call strategy or strategy making as seeing, which I'll talk about in the panel because it'll fit better there. So a couple of examples. Here's one from The New York Times a week or two ago. For Trump, a strategy over trade takes place. That's a headline in The New York Times that I read earlier this month. And what they said is that he was going every which way with his trade policy and then suddenly things happened with NAFTA and things happened here and things happened there. And now they've got a strategy. And their strategy is basically to put pressure on everybody and so on and so forth. The New York Times figured out what his strategy is maybe before Trump even figured out what his strategy is. That's an example of an emergent strategy. But let me not use that as an example because this is not my favorite politician or strategist for that matter. So let's talk about the flies at Ikea. Ikea, as probably all of you or most of you know, completely changed the furniture business by selling unassembled furniture, which means you could take it home in your car, saves company money, saves you money, everybody's happy. And it's a brilliant strategy in the furniture business. So where did it come from? Well, read their website. It came from a worker who had to take the legs off a table in order to get it into his car. A worker, not the chief executive, not the entrepreneur, and doesn't even say a foreman or anything, a worker. Now what it doesn't tell you is there was a strategic moment right then when somebody said, hey, wait a minute, if we have to take the legs off, so do our customers. That was the strategic moment. That did not come from the top. It came from a worker on the ground. And it was brilliant. It changed the furniture industry. There was another dimension to it, which I'll come back to in a minute, which is not only did somebody have to recognize that, but it had to make its way through the organization in order to end up being a strategy for IKEA. By the way, it took them 15 years to execute that strategy. OK, so there's another story, but I won't. So there's a nice quote from Carl Weich. We're much more likely to act our way into a new way of thinking than to think our way into a new way of acting, and that really should be a motto for creating strategies. So I call the traditional model deliberate strategy. You go from your intentions to your actions and the emergent model, an emergent strategy where you take steps, try things, do things like Trump with foreign policy, and eventually they converge into some systematic action. And the bright line, I have to read it here. It's too small here, but one of the bright line, number two, is accept that you're accountable for delivering the strategy you designed. Well, that sounds like it's directed to the chief executive. So let me question bright line a little bit. It's not what you designed, and it's not you're the only one accountable. We have to see organizations differently, and so here's a different model of how to see organizations. I'm not big on the word leadership or leader. We were just obsessed with it, particularly in the States, but everywhere in the world now. You say the word leader, you think of an individual. I don't care how empowering or encompassing or engaging that individual is. The word leader refers to an individual, always. So I prefer the word community ship as grounded engagement, and this is what I suggest, which goes along with what we heard earlier about organizations and so on, and that is number one. Strategies emerge gradually from grounded learning. They're not immaculately conceived at some top. Second, anyone can come up with an idea that can sow the seeds of a great strategy. And thirdly, such seeds sprout in organizations that function with community ship beyond leadership. So we really need, this is basically not so different from what Roger was saying, but puts a little more flesh on his bones. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor. You know, I was thinking about the bridge. We use a metaphor on Brightline trying to bridge the gap, but what was very insightful is that this gap is a two-way gap. You know, it comes from both sides, and thanks for your insight, and thanks also for your feedback on the guiding principle. On accountability, it means you need to be responsible for the full life cycle of your idea, independently on who you are at the organization.