 Hjälvkontroll, den rulls och polis är sänregulations. Äntligen när det kommer att kompeta. Vi ni läs kompetition med den där organisationen. Vi kan. Alltid såklart kompeta med, med andra organisationer i den same industri. Alla kompetitörer. De är. Maybe the companies, we should use competition to be to benchmark against their figures to use a relative goals. OK, I go for this company is to be better than our competitors. That's a good relative goal, but we are not. We don't have a fixed goal somewhere that we have to reach, but we need to be better than them. It's a good goal that would also unite your your company to come better and continuously improve and continuously learn. So it's good model, I think to think about culture and what do we want more of and what do we want? Let's let's go. I couldn't say this. Cycle is yours. I wish I could see the moment. No favorable. The moment. Finanseramänti. Difficult. Om det är precisarier. Subil nivå. Nej, om det är sajda, så ser jag. I think it's awareness, mainly awareness, what is happening. If we try to control more tightly, we may miss out and we may actually achieve the opposite than what our goal is. To looking, looking at other companies and looking at research. Hopefully there will be research soon as well. If these two women that are working within that field are doing their job. Because there is not a lot of research today. What happens when we turn our back to the figures, the numbers and the results, right? Because companies have a tendency to centralize everything when they should be decentralizing everything, right? For covid, for example. Now everything has to be decided by top management and the central office instead of empowering people to come up with their ideas. This is when we should use collective intelligence even more in these crisis situations or when the company is not going that well. There is an economic downturn. Now we need everybody's brains to try to solve the problem, right? But companies do the opposite, just like you're saying. But the awareness that this may be a counterproductive behavior can of course help, but then you need to send your managers to a leadership training. Awareness training coaching, that's how we say, we change. And structures and such things because it's all based on fear. It's all based on people getting scared when things aren't continuously, you know, improving and results curves are going up all the time. It's a fear in management, maybe. So we need to create that psychological safety for them as well. Hey, we are here, we are here to help. You don't have to grab all the power to you and to decide everything because we have a company of thousands of people who have great ideas of what we could do in this situation. Use the people in this situation instead of grabbing control and keeping it with the power to yourselves. Rekommendations, they come from the opposition of this thought. Opposition, for example, of controlling. Where the process of this eye, the governance, it gets more institutionalized, more... So it's a trid off of thought and management. When we... We're talking about this because we live in this moment but at the end of the day, in the financial cases, and the recommendations of the big fours are my opposition to this vision of agility, of people's involvement in the solution. Or that we can have a mediation, of course, an influence in a way. So it's okay, I'll try to control it for a long time, for a long time, I'll go back to a culture that's a little bit different, but it's all right. But at this time, as a state, as I'm involved in the freedom of the environment, I think it's nice. A dilemma, I don't know if we can finish it here, but it's worth it. And in the case of... I'm sorry. Yes, could I comment on this, please? Because we had an agenda in finance, of course, last week. And the recipe is very much in decoupling the organization. The antidote to what you were just saying is to decouple the organization. That's the technical solution, right? So we have one bank in Sweden, they are called Handelsbanken. And they are the bank that never went into bankruptcy or had any economic problems or whatever. They never needed support from the state, from the government. Because they were in a very big crisis in 1973. And they almost went bankrupt. And then there was this very intelligent CEO who said, I will take over this company, this bank, and I will turn it around. But you have to let me do this exactly as I want. And I will have all the power to decide how to do this. And the owners of the bank, they said yes, because they were facing bankruptcy. So they basically didn't have a choice. And all the people, they were facing unemployment. If they didn't turn around the bank. So everybody was extremely motivated to do, as this one man said, John Ballander, what's his name? And so he said, we're going to decouple the bank. We are not going to work with control and command chains anymore. We are not going to follow up all departments on our goals from the top management and so on. So what he did, he went from this kind of pyramid where you have this common control and command top down that kind of translates down the chain of command as you are very familiar with. To this kind of organization where this part is responsible for strategy and vision. This is our bank's strategy. This is top management. They are not giving orders to the next level, which is then support. Support functions. This could be, for example, IT. Here is top management. This is IT, HR, finance, legal, and so on. It's not the value creating units here. But it's the ones giving support to the value creating units. Here are the bank offices. The bank offices is where we create value for the customer. They are completely separated, not completely separated, because here they develop products and services. But they are not mandatory for the offices to use. They say here are the mandatory products and services and here are some that you can use if your customer base likes them. So they are self-organizing, self-managing, and self-directing themselves. The different value creating units. And they are competing against each other. Oh, now she says that competition is a good thing. I thought it was bad. No, but listen, they have a very small system with these units. Because they have a league table. They have somebody who is the best. They are here at the top. This is the best. The bank office producing the best result, let's say, financial result. And then we have somebody at the bottom down here. They are producing the worst result. Because they are comparing with the same KPIs across all offices. So why should they be able to improve? Why should they get help from the best office? And why should the best office want to help them down there? The bank office, who is the worst? Can you think of any reason for that? I think it's because of the fact that we did it here just the first time. So we wanted to improve the whole performance, helping the parties. Yes, that's correct. And you know what they did? They have a reward system so that every person in the bank get the same bonus as everybody else. Even the CEO to the worker in the bank office, they get the same bonus. That's why when they call them to ask for help to become better, they want to help them. Because then we have a bigger cake to share, all of us. That's what they did. A self-developing system, a self-improving system they put in place. So it's self-improving all the time. They're trying to become better and better because then the cake becomes bigger. That they all share all the people in the bank. It's a very smart system. But they don't work with control and command. They are self-organizing down here to create value. And they are supporting them in the middle. And they are working with a strategy. And yes, they follow the strategy. But they are not forcing results, economic finance results on to them. They are just comparing with each other and benchmarking and trying to improve all the time. And this is the way we could work. And this is theoretical. It's working in Haldesbanken. But of course, it's about psychology. When we talk about managers, we have those solutions. We have these companies who work decoupled in different ways. We also have a Chinese company called Hire and a US company producing their selling shoes, for example. We have many companies who work with decoupling their organizations, empowering the value creation units. But it's not about that. It's about people's psychology. It's about managers' mindset. It's about the power, the status, the money and the position that they have worked hard for for many, many years to get to that position they are in today. They don't want to lose that. They want the power structure to remain because they are making a profit on that. So why should they change? Why? To create a greater whole? No. They work for themselves. It's their profit. It's their bonus. I'm thinking about myself first. Not the better of the whole company or the greater good of the company. Because then they would work, they are very well aware of these models. And if they are not aware of these models, then it's enough just to enlighten them, just to train them, right? You go to a finance course, agile finance, or an agile leadership course, and then voilà. They will change, right? But they won't. But it's not about many times, it's not about the knowledge. They know they exist, but they don't do it. And you know very well why. What do you think? I think that, in the case of, for example, Truncero, the culture that was already established brings security. So maybe if there is not so much to say, we need to break this culture. Einstein, for example, in the pandemic, Einstein is a very famous hospital here in Brazil. In the pandemic they transformed, they used a lot of agility, especially to recruta, enfim, enfermeiras, they already had a process that was happening, they already knew a little about the tool that they were testing. When the pandemic came, they mobilized people and they used a lot of agility for that. But after it also passed, they took a little back. So I think this logic of understanding, in the case of you all, has a culture that is already more traditional, era, that was the whole life of command and control, because of the process, the production process. It is very critical, the surgery, what they produce, they have a lot of control, because of the danger, the physical of people, so I think in the case of you, I don't know if, helping in the discussion, come back, I want to be stronger in the organization, we know how to operate here. Transforming culture is a pain, how do you go completely to another place? The case that Maria brought, it is the first man who says, it is like that, that will operate. So you have a super strong sponsor that you can get. When you are transforming the culture by other sources, you need to get the support of those who are there to transform it. So in that process, maybe you are suffering a little, because there is no sponsor saying, look, we are going here. That is the path, isn't it? And when Nutt told us the story in the past, he commented that in this process a lot of people left, because that guy from Banco, who is used to aggressive bonus, who is our scenario in Brazil, he will not be able to do it. But it's cool, this thing above, because here you are not the culture that we want to create. Yes, and as I said, the guy in this bank, he had free hands to do what he needed to do. And everybody was in a crisis, that's why it was possible to shake the command and control. But the thing is with the regulations, we have a lot of regulations. There are two industries that I think of, particularly when it comes to rules and regulations. And that's the bank world, the finance institutes and it's healthcare and pharmaceutical industry. All the two ones that are the most regulated industries. And I happen to have worked in one pharmaceutical company. I was quality assuring and learning management system. And that was not my kind of human drive or need to do that, because I'm not the kind of person who is very ordered and structures and follow rules and so on. But I did it because I, at the time, I had a tough time in my company. The money that came with a very well paid consultancy assignment. So I went there and I did this work. And I was the first one, you know, you have this blue ink pen that you are signing with and the ink stays for 10 years and it's a control process that is extremely rigid because it's patient safety in the end that might suffer from this. But I must say that during my job I didn't pay that much attention to what I was doing because I knew that my work would be checked five times down the line. After me there were five people quality assuring the things that I had done in the first place. Of course I took less responsibility than I would have done if I knew that I was the only one responsible for this. And it was my head that would roll if the patient died down there. So I think sometimes putting one more layer of control does not help because then people stop being accountable for what they are doing and taking responsibility for their jobs sometimes. And there is one more aspect that I would like to enlighten here and that is the thing with external rules and regulations. Yes, we have a lot of external rules and regulations. We have the FDA in the healthcare industry. We have bank, finance, controller, organs. We have the socks. So you remember socks? And all these things. But that will not have to affect the internal rules and policies that we use in HR and management. Just because we have a lot of external rules, these are our constraints. But inside here we don't have to copy that inside the organization. We can still be much more flexible inside the organization and give the control authorities what they need anyway. But we have a softer, more flexible climate inside. But many times companies use it as an excuse. Yes, we have so many rules and regulations. So we can't work with agility, they say. It's just a stupid excuse because you can work with agility. It hasn't got to do with external regulations. That's your playing field. This is the kind of constraints that you work with in. All companies, all businesses have constraints. It's just a little bit more in some industries. The health industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the finance industry are particularly exposed to those rules and regulations. So I think it's just an excuse not to make HR. There's no rule that says we have to measure individual performance and pay large bonuses just because we have a heavily regulated external environment. Why? Why do you have to pay large bonuses just because of that? No, you can change all that. You can work with beyond budgeting like Anders Bank and this is a bank. They work in the couple. They are following all the rules and regulations and things around. They are still decoupling the organization, working with self-organisation and self-management and all these things that we talk about in agility. So it's a bad excuse but very effective for the people who don't want to change and want to keep things the way they are. That's my take on that. Ja, vi...