 I hope you had a great lunch. You're filled up, notebooks filled, stomach filled. For those of you who drink a lot of coffee, there will be more opportunities to have that. Obviously, it's about redesigning organizations and attracting and sustain happy-performing people. Whether we can do that without formal managers or not, that's the question for the panel. We'll try to deep dive into the what question, the why, the how, the who questions of being able to build self-managed organizations. Why is this a better model than the other ones and how do you do it and what's the pitfalls? We'll bring in some of the most curious people around this topic and they'll touch upon this based on a few different perspectives. Here's the happy crowd. We'll be inviting up for the panel. The ambition really for the panel is to try to extract three, four or five things that we're able to pinpoint and sort of the key, most important things to understand and to work with in order to have a self-managed organization work. Some touched upon earlier there are a lot of risks and there's a lot of reasons why you shouldn't go about organizing your company or organization this way. We'll touch upon a few of those as well. I'm just laying it out there that the ambition is to find three, four or five things that we can all bring home. We'll see if we manage. Super interesting crowd. We'll invite three friends up to begin with and then the rest and then we'll spend time until some time to ten to two. So some 40, 50 minutes on this topic. I'd love to have James Priest up on stage and Mary Williams and also Joss whom you met earlier today. It's a big hand please. Hello. The idea is for you to stand over here by the table so don't be shy. Which I can genuinely say would be the case because you're not Swedish. None of you actually, I realize now. Sorry about that. I'm very sorry for being born in the wrong country. Sure. But it's okay. We're very happy to have you here anyway. And you both come from the UK, Mary and James. And I thought I'd start off with you James because you've been working around this topic for many years as both a project manager originally and then a consultant and your lecturer, your author. And you've tried these things out very much so in a sort of community organization environment. A lot of focus on collaboration. And you've also invented or founded a framework an organization called Sociocracy. 3.0, yes I don't forget. And that's an area where you do a lot of evangelism in a sense and inspire and help people to work around that. To just begin with because some here know very well about that and some doesn't. What is Sociocracy 3.0? Okay well, Sociocracy is basically governance or decision making by the peers, the friends, the companions. Which in plain English means just giving decision making power to the people who are doing the work. And removing interference from people who are just overseeing that or coming from a place of abstraction. And 3.0 is basically the discovery of myself and my friend and colleague Bernard Bockelbrink out of Berlin. And we just noticed some tensions with the classic sociocratic framework and also with Holacracy. And also some tensions around agile, particularly when it came to scaling agile and lean principles into organization. What's the main difference between Holacracy and Sociocracy? Well Holacracy is a whole system so Brian Robertson developed patterns for addressing operations as well as governance. We also sought to patent the original kind of framework from classic Sociocracy and that was turned down due to the fact you can't patent a process. So there's a lot of influence from Sociocracy, particularly the circle structure and the double links. And Holacracy compromised somewhat on the consent principle. And Holacracy relies on a full implementation. So S3 was basically through navigating the tensions that we saw in implementing these different frameworks into organizations. We stood back one day and saw that the process we were actually going through to find new strategies to address the unmet needs was the thing that we now call Sociocracy 3.0 or S3. So a key component is various kinds of tensions that you sort of learn to navigate and use in the right way. It's just recognizing that all of life unfolds according to need. So life continues until there's some kind of obstruction or problem or opportunity and then it changes. So it's making that conscious and explicit. And the fact that we are by design very effective at doing that is just we do it in more or less conscious ways. And this is just a side reflection when we spoke the other week and we talk about these things. We realize that this is a subject that is sort of far beyond how do we organize our people. It's very much about looking into yourself and see what's purpose, roles, individuals. We talked about societal changes going on. So we're not going to dive into that right now. But you also do a speed talk later on. So for those of you who want to dig deeper. You also say that you can't just implement these practices. You can't just say and invite your employees to just go about doing this in this new way. Well to quote my friend Daniel Mezek, you can't mandate agile principles and practices into organization. You have to invite people to participate because otherwise it's just a hypocrisy of the essence of what you're seeking to do. Right. So the invitation is paramount. And if people can't locate themselves in the story of change, then why would they engage their short precious lifetime in doing so? And I think that's a good takeaway. And we'll come back to that because that's where you have the tension between management and employees. Mary. Hi, is it on? Is this on? Yeah, it is. I love that they look like Brittany and I get to pretend to be a rapper. I'd also just, I know this doesn't feel important in Sweden, but I'm from South Africa. I'm from a country that's still in the rugby world cup right now, not England. That's a lot of key messages in 30 seconds. Okay, sure. I just learned the Brittany whole thing just now. So from now on I'll call myself Tommy Brittany when I'm on stage. Anyway, that's not why we're here. You run a micro consulting company out of the UK? Yeah, in London. Although, as you said earlier, I've just three weeks ago taken on a normal, employed full-time job again to go be CTO of M&S.com. Which is Mark Spenser's online business. And you're newbie, in a sense, to this whole framework in this way of working on the agile methodologies. You've done that for many years, but you're also in P&G for God knows how many years. A very, very long time, yes. Right. I think it's very interesting going into Mark Spenser because I think all the architects are convinced I'm not just going to raise everything to the ground because they see my P&G experience. And then M&S are looking for more what I did at the government digital service, which was to help government be a lot more agile. So it's quite interesting. That's a challenge. But you might have help from your background, which is artificial intelligence, which is probably as cool as it gets, in a sense. But yeah, we'll see how that connects to this management philosophy. One thing I wonder, it sounds like quite a bold move by Mark Spenser to hire you into their fairly traditional organization. Is that just me mixing things up? So the much bolder move they made was a few years ago where they hired a guy called Kyle McGinn who I have a huge amount of time for and going to get to work with him is part of the reason I've done it. Where they realized that that kind of traditional program management approach to things maybe wasn't great. And they hired him into to run a labs team and have found that that kind of agile way of going from idea to something that you can test, whether it's really working, whether users really want it, customers really want it as quickly as possible. Have a small autonomous team that gets to build what they think is important to make the customer experience better. And we've really just seen it scale out of that. So there's actually a really brilliant product team over there. And now we're just into the how do we level up our engineering capability to be able to build basically build the kind of capability that we can't buy. Which is about how we survive the coming change. You can't hold back the ocean, but you can learn to surf I think is the phrase. Alright, there we go. Another key message. I was a bit intrigued by your by your background with with PNG because one of the things they price themselves with is obviously management training. So it just maybe it's not a paradox in any way, but it's interesting that you've been trained in an environment that is one of the world's best trainer in management and leadership skills. And now we're spending a whole conference on sort of flushing out the management layers with the early water. Is that so? And should we do that? Or I mean, you've spent your career. So that I think PNG and I think GE is the only company that produces more C level execs for other companies than Procter. And what they're brilliant at is teaching people is helping create an environment where people learn fast and level up and become great enablers of others. So people look at the people who stay at Procter for a really long time and are like, wow, you had the same job for 15 years. I was there for 10 years and I did seven completely different roles. And so they've become a very, very good at having a system where they can move people around and that be incrementing their ability to be effective each time. So you get to stay in an organization that you understand and you know how to get shit done, but you go experience a completely different part of the business. And I think that's interesting. I think we're three years gone from PNG now, so I'm not on the inside anymore. I still say we, sometimes it's in your blood. I think what's becoming interesting for them as a company is that if you have people who join at graduate level and stay for 30 years, they have to try very hard to be connected outside to understand that outside influence. And I think doubling down and believing that you'll discover yourselves, everything interesting that's happening outside is probably not a winning philosophy anymore. But it's also not a philosophy. They're trying to hold anymore. They're very much moving away from that. They're also moving into this century in a sense and this movement. But it's interesting because PNG then obviously looks like many other companies and some of them we have represented here today. So it's good just to tap into some of that experience. But basically you're saying that management is not evil and it's not only... We're not going to get rid of all management in a sense because there's good things with it. So I come from an AI background and the talk I'm doing today isn't about this, but I did research that was the Venn diagram of overlapping between artificial intelligence and project management, which is like being the only person in the world who gives a fuck about that particular topic. It's not a really popular research discipline. So I used to be a project manager and what we found in AI was all of these things that we thought worked from people project management, the important thing is to follow the plan well. There's lots of project management practitioners who will tell you that compliance is the problem. The process is great. These squishy humans who don't do as they're told are the problem. And we tried that. Robots really don't mind doing what they're told. They don't have any kind of existential angst about not feeling in control of their lives or any of that. They're obedient, they're tireless and it doesn't work. So even if you remove the squishy human problem all of those traditional ways of planning and operating those traditional techniques do not work. And what does work is exactly what just described this morning which is you help agents or robots to know what they're trying to achieve, to know what they're capable of and to make the right decision in the moment based on the environment and to do the right thing. So what I find funny is that we talk about this as being like a very different thing that we need to do that's the only way in a complex system it'll work. We have these complex systems in technology. The way they work is by being more autonomous, able to learn and able to act independently but towards a common goal. And so actually what robots would teach us is the same thing as we hear when we hear inspirational stories like this. Okay, so either we listen to the robots or we listen to you, Joss. Or both, hopefully. Because how do you relate to this? Because you built a company with no managers, basically. And we have a discussion here. Is it all management and managers' per definition that we want to get rid of for various reasons? Or are they good management and good managers? Do you hear me? Yeah. I think there are evil things in management. So what I learned is that throughout the years, first as a nurse and later as a manager director, is there are a lot of images about management which doesn't fit reality, I think. So managers themselves think they are important. And they are the cause of the things which are happening in organizations. And I think that's not true. I said to my colleagues, I think if we stay home today and the coming weeks and the coming months, nobody will notice. And perhaps some things will even go better than when we're just disturbing the daily work. Well, I think that's a good exercise to do. Just sit down for five minutes and just think about what would it actually mean if I just stayed home for three weeks? Don't just think about it. Go home three weeks. I think what's more important is if you're delivering services or making products, I should ask the question, what kind of support do you need to make the best possible things? I look at it from an economic perspective and I say, if you build this management structure and HR structure and so on, it costs a lot of money. You have to have a legitimation to do this. And if you can integrate these different aspects in the daily activities of people and not in persons, then I think it will be much more effective. So I agree completely with what you're saying, that the world is complex, getting more complex, and you have to be able to make the decisions at the moment you are dealing with them. But in my opinion, the hierarchical structures avoid people to make the right decisions at the right moment. So I think you need to find a balance. And I think that only talking about management already what I said this morning, I should broaden the perspective and I should think there are different ways to organise. And the management and management language creates some kind of a tunnel vision, in my opinion. So we should be more open to different ways of organising and it leads to more creativity because if you're all using this management language all the time, then it's disturbing, I think. A lot of professionals don't know this management language. Usually I see when nurses who are working for us have had a meeting, for example with some other people from other organisations, usually they are the managers. They're using other language, they don't understand each other. But the nurses usually think that they have more ideas, the managers have more ideas by the way they talk and the language they use. And I always say no, it's less because they try to cover up what they don't know. But for me that's creating this world has a lot of damaging things in it. And that doesn't mean that managers are bad. I think a lot of managers have the right intentions. So I'm not against menace but I think we should be aware of the consequences in how organisational behaviour develops, how people develop and can grow in organisations, and how if it's supportive or if it's working out more negative. Let's invite up two more friends and we'll broaden the discussion as well. Two other practitioners in a sense, Marijaf Turanmoh who's a consultant these days but spent a lot of years as an HR director, formerly just recently stepped out of NetEnt and Karin Tenelius who's a CEO and serial entrepreneur in a sense. Please welcome up on stage. You're making a lot of room. It feels almost a bit distant but you're called. Hi. There we go. In Sweden we have so much space, so we try to get closer sometimes. Anyway, Marijaf, hi. Hi. You're the HR director in this crowd. Exactly. You've done that for 17 years. I love HR directors. So you two will have a nice chat, I think. Yeah, absolutely. Some of your best friends are HR directors, right? What's fascinating is that you have a very broad background. You've been in steel, in finance, in gaming, so it's some of the things that we talk about here. I know for a fact that you've been working on hands-on. And it's notably when we look at what you've done, it's a lot of fast-moving IT-related industries. How do you relate to all this looking at it from the HR director's seat, in a sense, from what Joss talked about this morning and how we build organizations in this way? Yeah, when I heard Joss talking about we don't have an HR organization or an HR function as sort of the benefits of this, I think that maybe Joss has a more traditional and conservative view of the HR function. And I think the HR function is changing as well as other functions and the way we organize ourselves. But I think maybe we will see more MDs and they have the background in HR, for example. Instead of engineers. I think it was Harvard Business Review that actually claimed that last year potentially the best possible CEO in their view of any company would be the CHRO. For various reasons. For me, I've always been working with the managers. That has sort of been my role as the one working with the managers in the organization. And of course, if we don't have any managers, what will happen then? What will happen? I think, and I've been always been driving sort of, have a culture and a value driven organization. And it's exactly what is described here. So I'm totally into this and I think we can do a lot more and we are in a very exciting moment at the moment. So I'm really looking forward to see more organizations as process, yes. Because you've worked in, I said steel, that may not be the most fast growing industry on the planet, but you also headed up HR at NodeNet during the sort of booming years. You've been part of taking NetEnt, which is formerly Net Entertainment, which is casino gaming, from small to super successful. So it's been pretty fast. What's the most difficult sitting in the HR director's seat working with the managers, getting them to move in this direction? Because I imagine it's challenging. Yeah, but it's not actually the managers, it's the management team and the board, I would say. It's the biggest challenge when we talk about this. Because the managers, they really want to develop, we talked a lot about inclusive leadership and transformational leadership and to build self-driven employees. So it's exactly what we're talking about here. But the problem is the management team and the board who wants to have the budget and the figures and the KPIs and stuff like that. So that's at least my experience. It goes back to... And some of these companies you worked for have also been listed companies on the stock exchange, which is good as a context reference. Karin, Tonellius, welcome. Thank you. You're sort of a serial CEO entrepreneur that have been practicing these things since the 80s. But don't call me CEO because I never... That's just a joke at the office. I don't think anybody knows that. It says so in a few places, but serial entrepreneurs don't. Because you've tried these practices, I mean you've been in hotel business, you've been in the call center business, you're now in education among other things, trying to get managers and leaders to work in new ways. Yes, I read some books in the 80s when I was at school and then I tried out the theories there. Very inspired by Ricardo Semmler, for instance. And it took, I think, 12 years before I could try it out for real in a small company. And then I just kept going in very small companies, though. And when we say small, what's the scale? Well, at most I had 55 employees in like five or seven companies. So it's that size. So you've been quite successful in some of these companies. But you've also been, I know, when we had this pre-chat, you said that you've also been tremendously challenged and criticized and sort of challenged in the way you do things. Yes, because I was early. I mean, in the 90s I stood and talked about this in crowds like this. And it wasn't very well received everywhere. And it was a lot of argument about it's against the law. You don't know what you're talking about. Is it against the law? No. Okay, just checking. But what do you think this is such a controversial? I think people hear chaos. They hear chaos always. And it has nothing to do with chaos. The structures are there, but the structures are invented by the people that will live with the structures. So that's just the difference. It's a lot of order in the companies. Yeah. But it's also, I mean, people in general don't like chaos. It's not only management that doesn't like chaos. It's all sort of, all of us prefer in the sense some kind of order. You talked, you also said that one of the most fundamental things that we underestimate beyond imagination when we do these things is the fact that people need to be on board in sort of doing this. So forget about managers. There are so and so many people, but then we have an entire organization that needs to be on board in starting to work in these ways. Can you reflect upon that? And I also have taken over old companies a lot of old culture where they weren't allowed to do really basic things without allowance. But when we initiate this change, all the coworkers welcome it. It's like, yes, we can have a say. That's not, that's really great. And then is this honeymoon for a while. And then it's really rough because everybody understands that it includes dealing with older colleagues. Right. Okay, yeah. So you actually need to collaborate and deal with each other, yeah. Yeah. And then the trouble starts or the challenges. And in the other end of that, there is a lot of confidence, openness, and safety. How fast have you transitioned because you've done this a number of times? Yeah, my first two cases went really quick. I get afterwards because, so eight to nine months. And also that included to go from a big loss to profit, unexpectedly, actually. The profit or the loss? Always good with positive surprises. The profit became much, much bigger than we ever could dream of in two cases. So it's a good financial model. But the last cases, it took much longer than I thought. But here's also what you said that, and this might go for Sweden, it might go for the entire world, I don't know. But you said that the problem we have is that employees are so goddamn employed. Yeah. And it's not evil, but it's a mindset that is really hard to come to terms with. One of the people I learned the most from when I was doing GDS highlighted this brilliant quote, which is under stress, people do what they've always done, whether it worked or not. But I think that often what we see in these kind of transformations, when we're going from one state to another, is even if people are bored into it, even if they really want the change that's happening, under stress, under pressure, they'll revert to what they've always done and making space for that to be a bump along the road rather than a catastrophe is part of what I think you have to do. Letting people understand that this is on the horizon and that this is part of the deal in navigating transformation. I was reading the Deli Llama a couple of days ago talking about the need for self-discipline in embracing this kind of transformational process to hold ourselves and be aware of that invitation to fall back into previous strategies under stress, or when more vulnerable. But it's good then because world and work right now is not that stressful, right? We do have time and energy to explore. Why don't we broaden up the discussion? Because this is a topic that is one of the very fundamentals I think we agree on. How much of the challenges can be divided, or actually we'll do a quick poll, not in the audience, but we can do that too actually. A poll on stage where the biggest challenges lies in doing these transitions that we're talking about. Is it within managers and management, or is it with the employees having the interest, the willingness, the energy to move in to work in this new model? Race of hands. Management is the primary problem? Not managers, management. Stopping managers, managing. That's the biggest problem. We'll do a poll here as well. Management and managers being the biggest problem, or the individuals? It was like a fallout rate of 80%. So we'll do it again. Management is the problem, employees as individuals are the problem. Okay, interesting. Can I say, I don't think there's a problem. Go ahead, think there's a tension. Yes, and there's a disproportionate distribution of function. And it's important to recognize that a role is just a strategy to deliver value somehow, to needs. And it's one that we're culturally familiar with. And some functions are more clear than others. So like a leadership function, for example, we can understand leadership. When I'm meeting you, Joss, and having the conversation, it's like the company's successful because of your strong, facilitative leadership, I would say. And there's really a pattern where a number of organizations might make some kind of transformation towards more distributed leadership. But when the kind of benevolent leader or the facilitative leader pulls out or the coach pulls out and so on, then it can very fast return back to that old pattern again. And I don't think it's about who's the problem. It's just there's an opportunity and attention, and everybody's accountable. I think we're all accountable. Is that a key component, making sure that there's a facilitator, a coach, or I think you refer to them as translators, in a sense, almost. They have to be there. So you can't just rip all of them out. Or just in a way. No, I was thinking about what you were saying. But if you look at the average management education, it's focusing on the hard things. So it's not so much about psychosociology or how to communicate. The average MBA is too much focusing on the hard parts of the organization. So the attitude of a lot of people who become managers is unbalanced, in my opinion. So we should train them more with more spiritual things and more other things. So one of the articles, Sharda Nandram, the book I mentioned, wrote, she said, one of the reasons that things are going so well within the organization is that there is a good balance between material things and spiritual things. And I think as a society, if we look at the last 30, 40 years, we moved very fast to the material things and missed part of the things which creates a soul in the organization. Recognizing our interdependency. Also, yeah. Are these managers that we talked about, are they aware that, to what extent are they aware that we can actually work in new ways and actually, if we just take the time? Or are they too stressed and focused on? When I get into an organization where there are managers, I take them away and give, so they'd be part of the team. That's a quick solution. And in the beginning, the team needs a lot of facilitating and then you're totally unnecessary. So just a step back. So when you go in and you buy a company or you're moving as a CEO, you just take the management out? Yeah, I don't fire it. I mean, they are still there, but they're not in the manager role anymore. And what do you do in order for that to work fairly smoothly? Because it sounds very theoretical. I've been lucky because those managers are really long for this way of working. They were not top managers. They were middle managers, women. And they really thought it was a good idea to work this way. Nobody, when you're like six years old, they go, what do you want to be when you grow up? It's all like firemen. Nobody says manager. We don't grow up with this as a really aspirational career choice. I'm just like, one day I'm going to put a suit and tie on and it's going to be awesome. It doesn't happen. But I think one sort of tension or problem you have is when you have a very successful company. You have a lot of money, a lot of profit. And then if you want to drive change, it's quite difficult because why should we change this? This is a success story. But I think in order to stay at least attractive as an employer, you need to change in this direction. Otherwise we won't be there in five, ten years time. I think especially in five or ten years time. And this is really at the core also of your responsibility as an HR director is making sure that we have enough talent of the right caliber and that they're engaged and whether it's your responsibility or channeling it through the leaders, but still it's on your plate in a sense. Is that one of the core drivers you see in the way you work that it's about talent attraction? Yeah, absolutely. Motivated people and happy people at work, I think that's quite important and that's my why or my purpose, so that's important for me when I work. But I think we were talking about leadership training or training managers a little bit earlier and I think I've been part of so many designing for managers to become leaders. The leadership skills train feedback, train how to have a dialogue with people, conflicts. But I hope we will see other way around that we find leaders and then we train them in P&L and budget or whatever we want to have. So that we have the leaders and then sort of train them in this other hard stuff. That's much easier. We will never know where to find them. We will be surprised where we find them, I think. This is not because we don't do leadership training and so on. My opinion, you become a leader because you're taking responsibility for what you see and in daily practice by becoming a more and more senior professional. Yeah, of course what I talked about was a little bit more like if you have managers, if you're not the organization like yours because you don't have managers in that way. But a lot of organizations still have, most of them. So that's sort of I think the first step maybe towards something else. But when we talk about what you're talking about I think it's more like self-leadership, to lead yourself, to be aware about yourself and your motivation or whatever. That is so important. It starts very early. I quite enjoy reading kind of interviews and conversations with people who are very respected at bigger organizations. I don't know what's wrong with me. But it's interesting because I think we have this kind of pointy-haired boss view of what a manager is and when you speak to the best leaders and managers on European G, they were not telling anybody what to do, ever. And they had worked out early in their careers that that was not the successful strategy and they had found different ways to approach it. They were much more about enabling the right team to do the right things. And they're in a bigger organization so sometimes what they're also doing is providing air cover or helping somebody who knows what localize needs to happen but needs to understand something else. So being a translator is sometimes a valuable thing. But I think we have this kind of view that if we critically looked at who succeeds in those kind of management roles, many of them are not acting the way that we're worried about. They're acting the way that we would like them to. But they are burdened with this title and this perception and sometimes a set of words and vocabulary that is really not helpful, which I completely agree with. First of all, we're going to rip your mic off because it broke, so you're going to use that one. So no more Britney Spears, I'm afraid. It's not working, I'm afraid. So who will then be the leaders or the managers in this paradigm? And again, there will be a transition. We have this futuristic image of having no managers at all. But until we get there in about 100 years, how do we make sure that managers and leaders transition? Who will be the translators rather than the managers? Each other actor? You need to be a people person first of all. It's not about education, it's more about the view you have of people and their capabilities. So how do we make, because again, you've been very instrumental in building a few of these things and institutionalizing them in NetEnt, for example, and NodeNet. How do you get that across? So now we will start recruiting nurses only. Or now we will make sure that the finance department holds a lot of HR people instead. How do we try to make that actually happen? And you've pushed some boundaries in your former job. Because it also sounds like fairly bold moves. I think use good examples and inspire and encourage courage, I would say. Because I think it's a lot about courage. I'd really echo that. One of the saddest things is where you go into an organization and you find these people who are quietly putting up with a load of shit and trying to do better and doing all the right things in all the right ways and just being beaten down by how all of the ways of measuring performance are set up. And so I think there's an overall piece of going, let's measure success the right way and let's reward the right things. So somebody's professional success shouldn't be at odds with doing the right thing. But very often that is how we're set up, right? I wonder if it's the right question, really. Who's going to do this? Because I think it comes back to all of us. And everybody's at a different stage in their own personal development and that relative to the context of the culture and what I see as an emergence of people who either through just immense suffering have had enough of their current paradigm and are asking if not this, then what? And others who are more pre-emptive and seeing the possibility of alternatives on the horizon and there's this emergence happening, grassroots throughout organizations, throughout communities, particularly in the younger generations now. And I wonder if we can be a bit arrogant in thinking which expert now is going to facilitate this process. It seems that facilitation as a practice is what's required to draw out the inherent skills, creativity and potential. I worked 10 years with at-risk young people and we had a potential-orientated approach to engagement with them, which is like nobody tells the acorn how to grow into an oak tree. You know, it's just ridiculous because this seed has all that it needs. It just needs the right environment to flourish. And so people are very much looking at their environment now. They're dissatisfied with the story they were told would be satisfactory for them and they're looking much more to their own needs and what would bring them more happiness and fulfillment. And that seems to be a meme that's spreading. So I think this telling our stories, inviting others, if others can relate to it, and them sharing their stories and finding frameworks, patterns, processes, examples, people who are resonant with those, there's something for everybody out there. I wonder if we have to try so hard, really, or if it's more about acknowledging what's emerging and sharing this story and sharing our excitement with it and recognizing that there is hope. And it's down to all of us, not down to some expert. I think the water to the oak in those is what I say is a culture of safety, confidence, respect. And so what I try to do when I buy a company, it's a lot of fear and you just put confidence and safety and trust. So that's the water that is needed. Yes, so in a sense, will the individual employee become the manager in a sense? So it's a leadership training and the future will not really exist. You have a leadership training company, I'm sorry to say, but... No, no, that's fine. It'll be something completely different. Yeah, it is about skills. And I don't spend so much time in my leadership company because it serves hierarchical companies and that won't be the case forever, I hope. So I totally agree that leadership will unleash in other ways in the future. Right. Okay, so where do you find the ones that are good at doing this? I mean, we have a full crowd here that comes from all different kinds of places. They need to start digging into the good examples, the ones that are good at doing a few of these things that we're mentioning. Should we all look at Sappos and then be fine with it, or should we... Let's have a discussion about Sappos, because you were boiling. I mean, that's one example. We had in Morningstar there's a few examples that are used again and again. Any other examples or comments for that matter on the examples? I think we labor under this illusion that people want things to be the way they are. And I choose to believe that everybody comes to work wanting to be brilliant. And I don't think there's anybody who goes, you know what, today I'm getting out of bed and I'm shooting for just south of mediocre. We're not like that. There are people who they can't deliver their best right now because of something's going on or the situation they're in isn't great, but nobody comes to work going, that's what I do. Does anybody go to work going, I want to be just south of mediocre today? Not that many. So I feel like we're often talking about it, like we have to go and incite something in people that isn't easily there or like we have to become... Change agents, oh my God, unless you're actually a Secret Service agent, you don't get to call yourself an agent. But a lot of this is just get the fuck out of people's way and help the whole situation be better for people to do the right thing in the right way and be rewarded for that rather than punished for it. And I so wish I got to start from scratch ever because that would be... In some ways, being able to just do it right from the beginning is such an amazing opportunity. But I don't think that companies aren't people, systems are just systems, we can change them, and I don't think we need to believe that we have to make that happen to people. People want that, we just need to stop stopping it. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. You asked for examples, and I think of course that's good to look at different examples, but I also think we can just go home and look in our organizations and see what we can do and start there. Normally we want to have sort of a recipe and bring that home, and I think we all can go home and make a change. So what can HR start doing in this, and what are some of the things that you've tried out? Yeah, I will work more with self-leadership when it comes to employees. I have been focusing a lot on manager training or leadership training, but I think one of the recipes for this is to have sort of the driving force from the people, from the crowd, and if you train people or give them the safe environment and to be able to lead themselves, then I think this will sort of come naturally, in a way. And the key thing is to give away the authority and the control. And nobody wants that. Sounds like an easy task. Maybe we should just add in effective solution-orientated decision-making as well, to help people skill up on how to make decisions together, how to tap the collective intelligence that lies within teams, because a lot of people are struggling to manage with the tools and processes they inherited from before, and they're not necessarily so effective. I think the governance side is often underappreciated in terms of how to navigate, guide the flow of value in order, basically, by optimizing the flow of information through systems so that people who need to know things and people who do know things can transmit rapidly that information and it doesn't go between somebody who holds it all in some kind of autocratic position. Not enough. I'm sorry to say, but it's not enough. More things need to be done. I think young people will create one disruptive innovation after another. So we'll see. The bigger companies who are not changing yet, they will be forced to change or they won't live anymore after 10 years. So young people don't accept the way we build the organization. It's a 50-plus problem. So it's an intergenerational problem. We are built on... Most organizations are built on power, status, and money. And if we want to accelerate, then we have to create environments, in my opinion, which give the opportunity to the people to do their work as the way we are talking today. And if we don't do it, we will be forced to do it because I think what you see all over the world, disruptive innovations are more and more and more. There's a lot of money to keep these organizations running. And what comes out of it is less and less. So it's also my perspective, and I'm happy that I started two years for economics. It's also an economical issue, in my opinion. Also, I was thinking about the stress-related problems we have at least in Sweden. And it's sort of increasing. And I think this is also... That couldn't be a sort of a driving force for change. So I think we should look at the stress-related problems as a sort of a source for change to have more self-managed organizations. And I think that's why people are so stressed at work. This clash between how we are as human beings and how we are organized. I completely agree with that. In S3, we say that tension is a symptom of wisdom or new information seeking emergence. And if you look at the current level of stress amongst the human species today, that's a lot of wisdom seeking emergence, I would say. I think that has to be the final word, actually. But if you would have one thing to say, and you have 10 seconds each in a sense, the most important key message on how to get this to work, what would that be? Karin, you're sort of all fired up. I want to ask you, Josh, do you think we need to have a crash or can we do it painlessly change in society? I think both. The crash is already happening. So it's there and a lot of people don't notice, but if it's either on ecological or on energy or all kind of themes. So we are in transition and we are in change of eras and the coming 10, 20 years, I think we will experience the consequences of that. So if we can, of course, go on with a very gentle way of changing organizations. But if you're not aware of what we're doing now, so wisdom and awareness, I think are very important things at this moment, then as an organization, as that is your goal, you won't survive. That's my... You agree? Yeah. Okay, one thing. Just look inside your organization and start in a small scale. Inside, start in a small scale. Key takeaway. Be radical. Be radical. We need a transition. Yes, James? Evolution and we're the ones we've been waiting for. Stop trying to hold back the ocean. That's all I want to say. Which is very much get out of people's way. All right. Big hand for the panel. Thank you very much.