 My number two, oops. Okay, I think our mics are on. Does that mean that we should begin? Okay, thank you. Thank you all for joining us here this morning. I think I'm Ben Smith. I'm the editor of SEMIFOR. I guess I think showing up for an 8.30 a.m. panel in Switzerland is like the opposite of quiet quitting. So I hope you will have empathy for the people we are talking about who did not. And thanks particularly to the WEF team who prepared me incredibly well for this panel. I hope. I should also say that I've noticed at least two of the world's leading experts on these subjects in the audience, Kevin and Julia, which is slightly disconcerting. But in any case, thank you so much for joining us. And this is gonna be a hopefully free-flowing discussion with four people who've thought incredibly deeply about these questions, about work and the future of work. Quiet quitting itself is kind of, you know, a term that is quite contested by some of our speakers. And some, you know, who are both in thinking very hard about work and changing nature of work and operating very big complicated businesses in that space. And so that's what we're gonna talk about. I think we have 45 minutes. The last 10 will be questions. So please think about questions, which should be one sentence and in the form of a question. The WEF has also thought a lot about these questions, you know, and about the solutions, which they call good work, range from, you know, health and well-being, promoting fairness, and this is the sort of WEF framework, which you can find on their website. And I think there's like a QR code. But I will introduce our speakers from left to right. Thierry Delaporte runs Wipro, which is an enormous 260,000 employee company, an IT services company that started in Bangalore. He's based in Paris. Both attempts to solve and in deals with these problems every day, Martin Ferland is, leads the Mercer, which is the Martian McLennan's HR and investment consulting group. Also thinks about this stuff a lot. Adam Grant tweets a lot about quiet quitting, hates the phrase, and is an organizational psychologist who, you know, has thought a lot about this. And Anjali Sood runs Vimeo, come where she both, you know, manages people and deals with this question and has also changed the company to respond to some of these challenges. Adam, I guess I can start with you, just to sort of set the table on, you know, what are we talking about here? What is the sort of underlying organizational psychology around these changing nature of work and the so-called quiet quitting? Well, yeah, I do hate the term, Ben, because it suggests that employees are giving up. When in fact, quiet quitting or whatever you call it is a natural response to feeling that your employer or your boss has given up on you. So you blame the bosses? More than anyone else, for sure. Tough crowd for that. Well, I think this is the crowd that needs to hear it. Let's be clear. Good morning, Davos. So I think that, you know, we've had terms for this for generations, right? We used to call it phoning it in. Before we had phones, it was called mailing it in. This is not a new phenomenon. It's not specific to any generation. One of the classic studies was done in the late 1980s, and the finding was you could tell who is going to quote unquote, quiet quit. Six months before it happened. It happened when people felt dissatisfied with their jobs, but they did not have a voice. And eventually, they said, you know what? No one cares about me. I'm going to stop caring. And, Martín, you guys have done some research recently on basically how executives are thinking about and responding to this. I think about 50% of C-suite executives are at least open to the possibility of fairly dramatic change. I'm just curious what you're found and how you're thinking about it. Yeah, and I totally agree. It's nice to have buzzwords so that we call us on a particular issue, but I totally agree. It always is existed. I think it might be exosubbited by all that we've gone through over the last few years, for sure. And the good news is, though, that our data also shows that, actually, employers are the most trusted bodies out there compared to NGOs, governments, and media. Sorry to say, Ben. We are fully used to it. And therefore, if we can think together as employers, as corporate bodies, as to how we address that, I think there's a hope that we can at least reduce the number. I think, Adam, you're the psychologist here. There probably will always be that phenomenon, but the problem is when you have a high proportion of people that act that way. And I thought, as I sit here, that I would start by looking at my watch and the ceiling and quite quit a little bit and show what it looks like. But basically, we are told that a third of the employers think that's a big issue for their firm. A third of the employers that we survey every year as well, they told us that it's going to be just having the employees being engaged, being thriving at work is one of the top five issues they have on their radar right now. And it's also connected to high attrition and the difficulty in hiring and finding the great talent that they need. Anjali, do you sort of agree that, I mean, I think you are in, when people sort of use these buzzwords, they are really thinking about North American creative employees, like your employees and my employees, first of all. And I'm curious, do you, I guess, first of all, agree that there's nothing has changed and that these are just buzzwords? Or have you seen something new in the last couple of years with your people? Yeah, I mean, the Vimeo workforce is quite progressive in nature. And my general view is I don't think it's new. I do think, and I agree with you, Adam, that it's on leaders and companies to change. But I will say, I think we're in a unique world right now where what the next generation expects and needs to be engaged in their personal lives has not translated to work. And there's a fairly necessary reskilling, I would say, of leaders. If we want to have, are we going to communicate and engage with distributed teams? And how are we going to align people and connect with them in this sort of digital world? And I think that actually is a bit of a house on fire because I don't think most leaders feel equipped to do that. It's not a skill set. Most of us kind of moved up the ranks being great at. And I do think that without it, this same phenomenon of phoning it in or quiet quitting can in fact lead then to not being able to retain and make productive great talent, especially in an environment right now where we all need more impact and productivity from our teams. And I'm telling you, you run an enormous company, 260, the notion of having 260,000 employees, like I'm sweating thinking about it, many I think in Bangalore and around the world. And I'm curious both how it, you know, how the last two years and this conversation about the nature of work has impacted your company, you know, who are not millennials, you know, in Brooklyn. There's some, I'm sure some are. But and then also whether it's affected, you know, the business you're in and the products you offer. Let me tell you a little bit how the world has changed, at least from our industry and from our standpoint, just over the last two years, as you said, right? The context, plus 100,000 employees just over the last two years. So net increase of 100,000 employees, half of our 260,000 employees have joined us over the last two years. So actually 50% of the company has joined at the time of the pandemic, right? Where most of our campuses were closed, right? The average age of the company is right below 30. That's a fundamental aspect. So when we talk about quiet quitting, I think it's a very important topic and a reflection and an opportunity for us leaders to really reflect on the fact that yes, the work labor market has fundamentally changed and how do we need to adjust to that fundamentally as well? What employees are looking for, our candidates, you know, when they join the company is, they want to join a company that has a culture. They want to feel part of a culture. They want to embrace the values of the company, sense of purpose. I'll come back to that maybe later, but I think the sense of purpose is incredibly important. Why am I doing this, right? Second, I realize especially probably doesn't help when you have size, sizeable teams is that you need to communicate, communicate, communicate, connect. It goes actually beyond communicating. It's connecting. How do you make sure that the people understand where we are going and why? And why do we make the changes? Not only we are going here or we are going there, but this is why we have in mind, this is what we are saying, this is how we are progressing so that they feel part of the journey. I think it's fundamental. So those are the elements that we constantly try to bring to inside organization to make sure and we never do enough to be honest, right? To just make sure that people feel I'm part of it and it's exciting. And have the products you offer your customers changed? I mean, are you in the business in response to what you say are fundamental changes? Yeah, probably you're right. Then way back I would say our industry was very back office so you would work in centers far away and then you would send the work you've done back to clients, now the world is open. And actually it's one amazing thing with the fact of working remotely is that actually wherever you are in the world doesn't matter. So suddenly for our colleagues around the world, they connect with their colleagues in different countries, different places, different position, every single day. And so that is different because the connection with clients is also very real today. It may not always be physical, it is often virtual, but it's a lot more connected with the end user, all the client that he was in the past. And Anjuli, how is Vimeo's product, which I think a lot of people remember as a sort of high end video sharing platform changed in response to this? I mean, not just for your management, but for your customers. We've changed the business model and approach of Vimeo most entirely to look at the future of work. So today, the way we think of it and I think Thierry said it well is like we're all communicating more but we're not connecting better. And how can we use visual mediums like video at work? So that outside of just doing video meetings, how is a CEO sending a video message out so that you can get their emotion and nuance instead of reading an email, which by the way, employees don't read anymore. And when you're training your workforce, none of us in our personal lives read instruction manuals anymore. We go to YouTube and watch the video. The idea that we're going to train and inform and enable our workforces with documentation and manuals seems quite outdated. So we've actually, our entire business model now is working with the largest companies in the world to be sort of a corporate video platform that enables them to have more modern and human connection. Ben, if I may. Yes, please. It's so on point because exactly there's, what we have been working with clients is bring the digital enablement within the workplace because in very many workplaces, you feel like you're getting 10 years backwards or 20 years backwards and the tools that you have for work, the communication style, the approaches. So it's beyond video. It's all how you're equipping your employees. I mean, you're in high tech enablement, but many of our clients don't, we're not there yet. And therefore, for that experience to be more seamless that way, including communication. And as you said, it's not only the communications, it's the connection. And I think what you're talking about Angelina is about utilizing that format to make that connection better. Like for example, at Mercer, our town hall now, we still have them. We still want to share results. We still want to talk, but we do it as a, and I'll show my age here at TV show. And we wanna make it as a Netflix on demand. They can watch it whenever. And they have so, there's so much information available now. So you produce it in little soundbites the same and people dig into what they wanna dig into the same way they do at home. So there's a little bit of self realization and crafting the role that your time at work a little bit more customized to what engages you. So it becomes a little bit more personalized as an experience. Now I always think about like your kids today, they're on TikTok all day. So you have to literally define how you're gonna communicate in a way that's engaging and interactive and lean forward. And it puts a different onus on leaders. We have to communicate quite differently. Martin, do you see regional sort of regional geographical variation in, in how these big, both the big questions about engagement and the sort of narrower ones about internal communications are changing? I'd say that we see the more dynamism in Asia around the use of, so for example, our leaders in Asia were the first to adopt those types of different communication means. But that being said, as we adopt them in Europe in America, in the Americas, it's as relevant. And we're all seeing the vibrant connection we having when we communicate and connect in all these different ways. So yeah, Latin America are very, very active as well. So I think we're being pushed. And the one thing they have in common is much younger population at work. And Jerry, do you see this sort of regional? Well, you know, yes. I think there's different realities in different part of the world. And I think even inside these regions, there's different situation depending on where you stand, which phase of your career or if you life you are at. When I think about quiet quitting, one of the reason sometimes people feel like, you know, a little less into the job than the where before or they would want to be is, you know, the difficulty to find the right balance, work, life, right? And I think, you know, in the time of the COVID pandemic when working from, you know, for some it's been an improvement in on that aspect. For some it was not necessarily because they didn't have enough space for working and so on. So it's difficult to really paint, you know, with a broad brush. But one thing that I've observed is that, and I think we need to recognize that in some part of the world, in Asia in particular, sometimes the commuting may take few hours per day. Working from home is a huge improvement. And it's a reality. You know, for us to recognize that hybrid model is, you know, it must be promoted and we do absolutely embrace hybrid, meaning because it has multiple form but saying it's up to the employee to find, you know, where, you know, what works for him or her. But we want also anyway, a certain form of connection, a certain form of, you know, coming to the office and meet with others just because we know. And that's, you know, there's nothing like having a human interaction, you know, face to face, going for a coffee or actually going for, you know, some of the activities that happen on campus. Now, it is also a fact that, you know, there's an improvement in quality for some that do not have to commute every day. And in some other places, it's not even a topic. No, Adam, I mean, to go back to something you initially said about that there's sort of nothing fundamentally new about disengaged employees. What is new? I mean, is anything new that happened in the pandemic? Are there sort of changes that you do see as interesting? I think so. I think that in some ways quiet quitting is the natural sequel to the great resignation, right? So if you look at who decided to quit during the pandemic, literally quit, right? It was mostly people who were in toxic workplaces or had abusive bosses. And those people just ran for the hills, empirically, right? Well, what happened to all the people who couldn't? What did they do? Eventually, right, after trying to change their workplaces or their situation and failing, they said, all right, you know what, I'm just gonna check out psychologically a little bit. And so I think the context of saying, well, we're in a world that gives us more flexibility and freedom to find a better work life. I wasn't able to find that. I think that's different from what we had pre-COVID. But I think underlying that is still a fundamental psychology of fairness, right? We haven't used the word fairness yet, but there's a lot of evidence showing that people try to calibrate their contributions. They're trying to figure out, okay, given what I received from my employer, what's a fair way to reciprocate? And a lot of people feel like that balance tipped too far in the wrong direction. So during COVID, people felt like they were forced to work longer hours. They weren't necessarily given raises for doing that. They were put in stressful circumstances. And so at some point you say, well, this is not right. You've violated, maybe there wasn't a written contract that you violated, but you violated what's been called the psychological contract. And now I'm going to basically reciprocate by saying I'm out, I'm doing the bare minimum. And do you buy, you certainly hear employers in fields like say journalism complain that their employees are drawing sort of new line, like think a lot about work-life balance, don't consider their jobs, their hobbies, I find this sort of incomprehensible, but and that that's sort of a fundamental social shift. Do you think that's true? I don't entirely buy that it's a fundamental shift. In part because this has happened with multiple generations. So everybody at some point in their career has said, well, I had to walk five miles or kilometers in the snow barefoot uphill in Davos of all places, which is torture in order to get where I am and you should have to suffer the same fate. And I think every subsequent generation has put up a boundary and said, no, we're not going to tolerate this kind of treatment anymore. We want to break the cycle. What's different now is that we have more tools and more ways of expressing our voice. But if you look at the data, there's a psychologist, Jean Twenge, who studies generational differences. And she says a lot of what you think is a generational trend is actually an age difference because we're confounding the two when we look at generational differences. Is it because you're a millennial or a Gen Z or is it because you're 23? And overwhelmingly, what we see is that people want the same things out of work from every generation, that if you see entitlement in a young workforce, guess what? You were entitled at that age too. You were just a little bit sneakier about it. So I think there's probably more to say about fundamental human psychology reacting to changes in context than there is about fundamental changes in human psychology. There's an alternate point of view on this, which is that it's basically about tight labor markets and that employees are asserting themselves because you need them more and they have more leverage. And then maybe as interest rates go up, you can stop worrying about all this stuff and they'll just have to do whatever you want them to do because they need the job. And I guess I think that's particularly true in the conversation right now around engineers who have been like the most, like if there's this incredible genre of videos that on TikTok that engineers at Silicon Valley companies make about their work day where they bike in the mornings and then surf and then arrive at work at 10 and make a smoothie, do a little coding and go home at like three. And I think, I was talking to a major taxi who said that the question everyone has about Elon Musk is like, can he break that culture of engineers? Which taxis quietly hate. They would like engineers to work like other employees but there's so much demand. And I'm curious, I don't know, I mean, you two both employ engineers. Are you, how do you navigate that particular particular supply and demand relationship in that particular labor market? Half of Vimeo's workforce are engineers and we have R&D centers around the world and we quadrupled our team during the pandemic. And I would say that to me the supply demand dynamic has shifted materially in the last nine months. It's easier to hire. Yes, and companies like Vimeo are doing layoffs and there's been a complete culture shift in the last nine months from what I can see. I remember, yeah, I mean it was just to hire good engineering talent, it was so competitive and you were, you were throwing packages at people because you had to. I do think that's shifting. I don't think any of that changes the overall kind of opportunity that we have to engage and inspire and connect our teams to be clear but I do think it's changing. And the way we've thought about it is we are trying to be a bit more proactive about making sure the people that are at Vimeo are bought into the culture and actively are choosing to be here. Give you an example. We recently did layoffs and we offered a voluntary package for anybody who wasn't excited to be at the company to be able to actively choose to leave. And that's something I don't think I would have done a year ago, I would have been terrified of what might happen. And in our case less than 2% of the team took it. And so culturally what that enables us to do is say, well, we aren't here quiet quitting because we don't have a choice but we're giving you a choice and it makes you kind of reassess why you're coming to work and what you want and whether this company is the right fit. So I think that those types of things are gonna happen more and more just because of that supply and demand shift. How many engineers do you employ, Thierry? Well, 90% of our employees are IT engineers. So there are cycles in the economy and ups and down but I would say on the long range there's no doubt that the demand for talent in technology will continue to be very high. So it's certainly a fantastic sector where as a young graduate, when you're starting your career you certainly have a great perspective in front of you to expand and learn a lot of new things. For us it's really about how do we provide them with as many opportunities to grow, right? So can they move from one technology to another? Can they have a mobility career, right? Can they aspire to take a different role or work in a different department of the organization? Can, do they have visibility on their career progression? And I think it's an incredibly important I feel aspect of not only retaining because one of the point we talk about is you may retain the body but not the heart with it, right? And we want both really. But really provide a career opportunity, a vision on how your career could evolve was not so far from now, not five or 10 years but really one, two, three years time. So people are really drivers, actors of their own career progression. And I think it's, we see that, that when we are able to develop this mindset in a team there's a lot more energy and there's a lot more engagement at the end. So Martín and Adam both started at various points in that. First I'm an actor by trade so I've studied demographics and let's not kid ourselves. The demographic pyramid is not looking in our favor in terms of having a lot of choice in the talent pool. So we need to really go beyond traditional talent pool in terms of how we recruit. I think back to Adam, what you were saying, the employers who are the most interesting, who are caring for you, who will give you learning opportunities will prevail because we will have twice as many people as today that are aged 60 and over in just 20 some years from now. And therefore the number of people who need services and the number of people who can provide them, the pyramid is completely shifting. With many countries here in Europe, the population itself is already declining. China will be soon. So we need to think differently about work and one aspect of it for us that we're really talking about changing from jobs to skills and providing people with self determination, like job crafting their own skill set. A little bit like if you're American, you were in the scouts or the brownies when you were young, you had the badges and your badges are at the different level of competencies that you have in a vast array of skill set, abilities, knowledge, experience. And you wanna craft that in a way that you access what's missing in your portfolio and what you're interested in. So I'm really thinking about this new ways of organizing work around skills, around matching, around this is the type of project it will give you, it requires those skills and will give you these opportunities and you choose to go there. So this whole self realization determination I think will be key to attract and keep the best. It goes with the communication connection but it also goes with the whole environment that you are providing as an employer because the talent pool is shrinking. Adam? Yeah, when we think about this problem of keeping the best in particular, I'm seeing a lot of CEOs scramble and say, okay, we've gotta do exit interviews to figure out from the people who actually left, right? What we can do to keep the people we want to stay. I'm a big fan of exit interviews, just one little issue. It is the dumbest time to run them. Like why would you wait until people have already committed to walk out the door to say, if only I had a time machine, I would go back to the past and convince you to stay. What I would much rather see employers do are entry interviews and stay interviews. Entry interview is just asking the same questions you would normally pose at exit at the beginning of the employment relationship. Why are you here? What are you hoping to learn, right? What are some of the best projects you've worked on? Tell me about the worst boss you've ever had. So we can try to emulate the good and avoid the bad. And then obviously not everyone's a new hire with existing people, it's your job to invest in making this a place that they would want to stick around at, right? So in a stay interview, you asked very similar questions. What has been the defining highlight of your experience here? What have been the lowlights? What made you consider quitting? And how do we make sure that doesn't happen again? And that should be an ongoing conversation. I'm gonna add one thing to that, which is something that we've been experimenting with more that I am optimistic about, which is also shifting the conversation from, it is a tops down like leader's job to create and solve this problem and actually make it a culture and it's your team, you all together are part of finding the solution. And what I found is like, instead of me being like, let me interview you and you tell me what's not working and it sort of becomes an opportunity to complain and displace the joint responsibility. And what we've found is we've actually gotten like some of our most tenured and engaged employees to get up and do in our town halls panels and talk about what they're doing to drive more culture and improve Vimeo's culture. And I found that to be like quite a powerful way to take us away from it, us versus them mentality and just sort of double down on the fact that we are a collective and collectively like we're building a better company. But you know, I just sort of listening to how you, I'll think about this and looking at those kind of WEF goals, it feels like there are kind of two slightly different approaches to kind of this engagement question, one of which is essentially progressive workplace values. The WEF stuff is really entirely about treating people well, paying them, encouraging diversity, sort of things that could apply to any company. And then the other is about mission and about in some sense, you know, the kind of Elon Musk approach. Like we want people who are so hardcore that they don't care if there's toilet paper in the bathroom and their salaries are paid on time. And to me, those things feel a little bit intention, actually, sort of mission versus these very abstract questions about fairness and employment. And you know, and I think, you know, there's some, you'll sometimes see people say they think that the mission stuff is sort of a con and sort of a trick by employers to, you know, just so that they don't have to do these things. And I'm curious if you see those things intention, if you see them as the same. I've never thought about them intention. I just think they're both two sides of the coin. You know, you have to pay people and treat them well. And you should be incented to do that because that's how they will do their best work, which will then lead to the best business results. But I think the reality is, I think you said it like, it's not just your body, it's your heart and you will get so much better work out of somebody if they feel part of the culture and mission. So I think these are kind of all necessary things for us as leaders. And my bet is that the mission side over the next kind of couple of years will become even more important. And I agree, like for differentiating employer brands, I think it's gonna become really critical. And just we'll take questions in just a moment. So please think of questions. Ben, if I can jump on that, every week, actually, I have a used to be kind of breakfast, but now you are doing it virtually, right? It allows you to have people from different places around the world, but really different level of the organization. 15 people, one hour, just a no agenda, nothing is just a normal discussion, like you would have, you know, in the cafeteria. What I find striking is that the number one reason for the people to really be happy at Wipro is the fact that they know that at Wipro, two-thirds of the equity ownership goes to a philanthropic trust. So it means that they know that every time we drive growth and profitability, it goes to actions, philanthropic activities in the world. And they can take pride of that. And I think if I take a little bit of distance from that, I believe that, of course, I agree with you at the end of the day, you know, they need to be well-paid and they need to be well-treated and all of that. But they aspire to something more. They aspire to something that gives a sense to part of their life. It's not all their life. They have life outside of the office, of course. But they spend so much time, whether they work from home or not, by the way. They spend so much time for the company. They prefer to have a company that is really focusing on having an impact in the world. And so for me, it really goes back to the question of the culture, the sense of what you're doing and why. Obviously, if you narrow and go one level down, it could be about, you know, truly understanding what you're doing every day, which may be a task or a selection of tasks, has a fundamental impact for someone else. And I think, again, it is really articulating the reasons, the drivers that give a sense to what we are doing. I think, as always, our people are wonderful. They have the right attitudes. They want to do good. But they don't necessarily always know how. This is our job to make sure they do. Yeah, I think we have to be very careful when we cultivate and also attract people with a sense of purpose, that we don't end up taking advantage of that. And I think in the wrong hands, mission can be used as a device for exploitation, right? There's research on what's called the passion tax, which is the idea that if I love my job, my manager is more likely than to stick me with unrewarded, unthanked work to dump meaningful tasks on me, to basically ask me to do extra work in my free time without any compensation. And I don't think that people who love their jobs and are deeply passionate about their work should be taxed for that, right? That should be rewarded. I thought it was supposed to be its own compensation. Yeah, I mean. That's my view. Yeah, right? You should thank us that we're giving you the chance to experience this joy and meaning, right? That is my view about being a reporter, but be it's working for a living. But I realize it's a minority view and I try not to tell my employees because they don't really buy that. Yeah, I think we have time we've got 10 minutes for some questions. Is there a microphone floating around or should people just, ah, we have a microphone. I want in the front row here. And please just keep them tight. So we talked about two hypotheses for the post-pandemic relationship between horizontal talent. One was that nothing is different. The other is that it's because of tight labor markets. Can I throw out a third hypothesis and just ask for your perspectives on it? Third hypothesis is that we're dealing with an environment in which a lot of people experienced serious trauma, death, professional hardship. They didn't know what doing a good job looked like. We dumped a lot on them during the pandemic and that must be different. I mean, our parents didn't have two years of trauma, so something must be different about that. I don't know, that's just a question. Pretend that was a question. Close enough. Anyone have that? I think it's a really important observation. I think the jury is still out. I think on the one hand there's a strong case that what we are seeing in some cases is a trauma response. We know that levels of grief, loneliness, burnout, distress, all the psychological symptoms of the pandemic did spike in the early days. What's surprising though to a lot of people is that that was a shorter blip than many of us have assumed. So if you look at the data in the US and UK, for example, by the summer of 2020, there was a pretty significant rebound. And even some cases of post-traumatic growth. People saying, I have taken this as an occasion to reevaluate my work and my life. And now I have more meaning, I have stronger connections. And so I'm not sure how that's gonna play out in the long run. I think the other sort of piece of data that speaks to this a little bit on this being a trauma response is if we look at what most employees have gone through globally, what we see is that many, many people have said, okay, this is a watershed event for me, a little bit like 9-11 was in the US. And I now have higher expectations of my employer. And when those are unmet, then I'm even more likely then to disengage. But I think fundamentally, when we look at the psychology of trauma responses, we see that there's a huge range. So in any given traumatic event, about 15% or 20% of people will face PTSD. And then many, many people will bounce back. Quite a few will bounce forward. And I think it is too early to tell right now what COVID is gonna look like. But there is good evidence that when people have to start their careers in difficult circumstances, they end up long-term more grateful to have a job. They end up more satisfied with their work. This is Emily Bianchi's research. And this is another way that employers can take advantage of employees, right? You are so lucky to have this terrible job. But I think that in the long run, if this is a trauma response, one of the reset effects it's gonna have is leading people to say, you know what? I should not take for granted having decent employment. I think that, okay, for most, it was not that traumatic. Apart from, you realize there was a different way to work. You realize there was, for some in industries that were highly impacted and realized there are vulnerable types of industries and very often at the lower end of the pay range, there might have been more of a trauma in terms of what am I doing here, why? And you've seen a lot of people quitting those industries. But in the main, for people, it was more realization that of all that's happening outside of their work sign, because they were working from home, seeing the kids come in from school or doing their schooling or their spouse and how their spouse were living their daily lives. And even just eating in your kitchen, which I've never done for like for 35 years, all kinds of different things that you say, is there a different way to live this life, to this work life in particular, that will give me a little bit more of both. And we're trying to establish hybrid types of working. It's a grand experiment. We haven't cracked that nut, I don't think, just yet. There's certainly something quite interesting in that, to address this grand realization that such a huge portion of the population have had that lives can be lived a little bit differently. Julia? Thank you, great discussion. Julia Hobsbawm, The Nowhere Office Project and the WorkShift column for Bloomberg. How optimistic or pessimistic are you that the C-suites can in fact step up to the plate when the evidence would suggest that they haven't? The metrics pre-pandemic with stress and low productivity showed they didn't get the memo, the $400 billion annual spend on leadership development, training that doesn't appear to have worked through, et cetera, and of course the demographic that the C-suites are not made up of Gen Zs who are fast accelerating. So how optimistic or pessimistic are you that you can be cloned at scale in the boardrooms around the world? Can we clone it? Sure, yeah. I'm quite optimistic, but I do agree. We have to have, this is why I say we talk about re-skilling of the workforce. I think we need a re-skilling of leaders, period. And whether that means generationally or not, we have to show up for employees differently. The way we inspire them in great culture has to be different. The way we communicate in form has to be different. But to me, there's just an intentionality that any of us as leaders we can do, but it takes change, it takes being self-aware, it takes adopting new mediums and technologies and trying things that your PR or comms team is gonna tell you absolutely don't do that. And they're gonna say the script and then you're gonna realize, well, if I wanna be authentic for my employees, they need to feel like they're having a conversation with a real person. And so I think it's gonna take courage and experimentation, but I think maybe the good news for us is we don't really have a choice. And employees are going to demand it. And ultimately for us to deliver on the bottom line, we have to have impact from our teams. So I think the incentives are aligned, which is why I'm optimistic. I would absolutely echo what you just said. I absolutely agree. So I certainly share the same optimism. I think we are learning by experience or by experimenting, I would say also. I think at the end of the day, I think it's a life lesson as well. We need to recognize that industry companies can no longer be as vertical as they were, that people want to be empowered, that they want to keep the choice, so they are not gonna do it because they have to but because they believe in it. And so I think we need to reflect on the fact that we need to build the world for them. I often think about the 31 years old, average employee of Wipro who's 20 plus years younger than me and do I understand them? How do we make sure that we understand them? How do we make sure that we really understand how they see the world versus how we see the world? And we often have discussion with our leadership and what we call the middle management who are in different level of the organization to really see where are the gaps in understanding. I take a simple example which is quite basic and yet always destabilizing for some leaders is the younger don't read emails. And do we have time maybe for one or two more questions? No, we do not. People are making this gesture, sorry folks. Well, thank you all so much for participating in this. It was, I feel like I got a lot of good advice and it was interesting. I think I was expecting to hear that you were seeing huge differences regionally and globally and it really sounds like the workplace culture is really globalized to a pretty remarkable degree. Yeah, so I will take all the good advice you've given and back to my tiny company, but thank you. Thank you all for coming.