 One thing we need to remember is that transformation is a human process, and one thing that I want to share with you today, because today is a very special day for us, I'm not saying because of this event, but also because you are the first ones to have your hands on this. This is what we call the people manifesto. We started last year talking about challenges and challenges and challenges, and then we always hit to a place it's why people love talk about change. But in reality, people hate change. They love to talk about change, and you say, oh, let's change and say, but can you start on the other side? Can you start on that? But why changing here? And this is a common, and then we try to identify four parameters on that, and we try to start and challenge some of the assumptions around leadership, around self-interest. So how you can make people move towards one direction if they don't buy it? And this is why many people say, I don't know where organizations are going. In reality, it's not that they do not know, it's that they do not like. But say do not like is sometimes a little bit tough, so it's much better that you say they do not know. So one thing that you will see a lot from Brightline on next year and we are starting is trying to understand this human behavior behind the challenge, because if we do not understand that, there is no money and energy in the world that can get things done. So this is, you are the first ones to get that. Of course, to talk about that, we decided to create a super nice panel on the human side of this transformation. And to moderate, I want to invite to this stage HaFoosh, digital anthropologist and executive director of the Head Thread Institute of Digital Culture. And joining her on the panel, I want to invite Richard Straub, president of the Drucker Society Europe and also president of the Drucker Forum that will happen in one month from now, where the main topic is the human side of transformation in Vienna. Susan Steele, executive partner, IBM Global Talent and Engagement Center of Exilis. Claudio Garcia, executive vice president of strategy and corporate development of Lee Hatch Harrison and again, back to the stage, Vishal Law, chief strategy officer of HP Enterprise. Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a warm applause to the panelists. Thank you. Thank you very much. The floor is yours now. Thanks, Vishal. Susan, thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to switch this over. Vishal, thank you again. Claudio, thank you. Hello. Good morning. OK. Thank you, Ricardo. We're going to dive in to the panel today. I am super excited to be here with all of you because this is a subject that I care very much about. And I think we have a great group of people here to talk to us about the subject. So before we get started, I just want to make a couple of quick remarks to give you an idea of how this panel is going to go. But also to let you know that we are the last panel that is standing between you and lunch. And I have instructed them to lock the doors in the back and to not open them unless we get some real good questions from the audience. So you've been warned. Think about it. Think about what you want to ask. So the human side of transformation has become an essential theme and every organization across industries is talking about this. By the presence of the people in this room and the interest in this topic, we know this is a universal organizational issue. Today, we're going to get some interesting cross industry perspectives about how we should frame this issue. So Ricardo already introduced the panelists, so I'm going to take that time and give it to them. But what I will say is that we do understand that this is such an enormous topic that obviously it's going to take us more than one hour to unpack. So in fact, I just want to let you know that the Drucker Forum in Vienna this November is spending multiple days diving into this issue. So we hope that you can join us there. And to start us off with a little bit of context, I'm going to ask all of our panelists very quickly in a quick kind of just two, three minute overview to set the context for us by answering the same question. And the question is, when talking about the human side of transformation within an organization, what is one of the most common blind spots that you've seen in your experience just to set the boundaries of what we're going to be talking about today? So Richard, I'll start with you. Thank you. Thank you, Ralph. Just one word regarding the Drucker Forum, because you kindly invited everybody to join. Unfortunately, we are sold out. But we will have a live stream and you are cordially invited to register for the live stream. So just to be sure. But there will be another one next year. So we will be happy to have you. Now, in terms of in terms of setting the context from from my perspective, because as Ralph said, the subject is on the Drucker Forum. It's the human dimension in management in a broad sense. All aspects of management. And I would just say there is currently a sense of dissatisfaction with the help that we get from management thinking and from management theory and practice in terms of how what to do with this human dimension. I think there is a feeling that Roger made the point in the morning. We are some way we are thinking maybe in the wrong way about it. He made the point about about the change in paradigm. And if I just take the example of technology, of digital technology, digital transformation, we talk about transformation. It is obvious that we are taking an engineering perspective on these subjects. We are not looking through the human lens. We are taking an technocratic perspective. We're looking through a pure economic lens or pure technology lens. And there is a big challenge there. So the engineering metaphor is also one of these what I would think paradigms that has been with management that has evolved over the last. Hundred years and we are not really ready to get rid of it. I would like to come back to Draca in this context. Peter Drucker had always these big ideas showing in the right direction and inspiring people. And Peter Drucker made the point about what he called the social ecology. He said we need to operate now in an environment. And he was not talking about the natural environment, but a man made environment of organizations and institutions. And they are all connected. They are all interacting in some way. And as Roger said this morning, they are a complex system. They are acting as a system. They are not to be engineered. They are human. There are people behind it. This is a human issue. And so when we think about that, we need to fundamentally change our perspective. Like thinking about less about an engineering approach, but a gardening approach. How does a gardener operate as opposed to an engineer? When we think about transformation, we cannot think if we take the human perspective. We cannot really think about transformation as a planned executed approach. We have heard it now many times. It doesn't work this way. But we could think about it in terms of evolutionary capabilities. How do we create capabilities that these organizations can evolve and sort of develop capabilities to change and to transform themselves? I won't go much further now, given the time. But I would just like to make one final point again coming from Peter Drucker. In these phases where things are changing and we are in a period where things absolutely need to change, it's never a revolution. It shouldn't be a revolution. Drucker was against revolutions. He said you need both. You need continuity and change. There are things which have evolved over time that are very good and that need to continue. But a lot of things need to change. And the challenge is now, the human challenge in a way, no machine can do that for us, is to find the new balance between continuity and change in this field. Okay, thank you. And we will definitely dive back into that in just a second. Susan, your biggest blind spot that you see people struggling with during transformation. So I actually see two major blind spots. The first one is a failure to personalize the transformation for every single employee, customer, stakeholder. We're using generic one-size-fits-all approaches. And in this day and age of mass customization, why are we not personalizing the transformation for each individual? And secondly, I see a failure to embrace technology, especially analytics, which ironically helps organizations better personalize the transformation. So I see those as two big blind spots across many organizations today. And I know you'll be talking to us about your experiences with those two struggles in just a second. Vishal, blind spots. I mean, I think the biggest blind spot I see from the work I've done over the past couple of decades is people just forget about the human side of transformation. Right? I mean, that's like the big, the big, I mean, you just can't have an execution or a transformation be successful until you're thinking about people who are going to do it, the people who need to transform the work, who are going to live through it. It's just not thought about, right? It's an afterthought. And when it's an afterthought, it doesn't work, right? And I think that's the biggest problem that we have is that it's just not thought about. That's a very excellent point. Claudio, blind spot. Yes, maybe what I would say is more beauty in what you said. But the way that I summarize that is we have the wrong assumptions about people in the organization. I mean, we suppose that we understand people and try to make them transform themselves. And at the end, there's so many new things about the human dynamic that is being released right now by science. And if you look like the human science in the last 20 years with more access to data, with more access to experiments, so many new things that are coming up, but we are not incorporating in the management practices in the organization. One good analogy that I would make is behavioral science, all these experiments that came from Daniel Kahneman and a lot of behavioral scientists is changing fundamentally how we see economy, and how the economies are thinking about what they call the econ, the rational model of a person that drives all the economy. And they are discussing that, how do I incorporate those findings in the economic discussions, and how can we have better models that represents what is the human side of that. We are not doing that in management practices. And at the end, what we do is exactly what he said here, that is we just do plans, cognitive plans, cognitive projections of what we think about, and we force people to adapt to them. So I'm sure what you can hear is there's a lot of blind spots. This is a really big issue that takes into account the philosophy of digital transformation, the way we're applying the technology that we have to align with what employees expect, the prioritization and focus that we maintain on these types of projects, and then even the ability of the models that we use to measure our success and to sort of align ourselves with those initiatives. These are really giant issues. Just one of them, I think, could derail a transformation project. And then we have to manage all of these. So I'm going to take a step back, and I'm going to bring it back to Richard, because I want to start with a bit of a bird's-eye view of transformation. You've said that briefly that Peter Drucker referred to himself as a social ecologist. So I'd like you to maybe elaborate on that a little bit, and to also let's get really specific of what does human-centric mean to you when we talk about transformation. Let's start by maybe on a definition. Peter Drucker, the notion I said briefly, the notion of social ecology, was for him something where I think he anticipated in some way things that we see happening today, because companies are evolving from traditional organizational constructs to more ecological entities. That means organizations that are tightly connected to a whole ecosystem and who operate in a new way with this ecosystem. So that means, and at the end of the day, as we all know, even though somebody said today the end of, how was it said, the death of human-centric organizations. I was scared when I heard this, death of human-centric organizations. I think they will be more human-centric than ever. The future organization and the example of the social ecology and the example of the ecological way of how organizations now evolve with their ecosystem is a good example, right? How this will play out. And you can see the Alibaba's of the world and others. I mean, the Hayek Group, for example, is experimenting in completely new areas. So they are doing things, but this is all driven by people. And it's a question about, because you asked about what does it mean, the human perspective, the human dimension. It means really looking through the lens of the human being and not looking through the tools and technologies. These are tools, even if they are AI. AI is nothing but a tool extremely limited in its capability. Nothing at all to do with the human mind. Let's be clear on this. At least that's my personal opinion. So the human perspective is fundamental in this. So Claudia, you've heard what Richard has said about the overarching perspective on transformation. I know that at LHH you work with a lot of global organizations on these types of questions. So what do you think about what Richard said and in terms of how do you feel the state of strategic thinking has been helpful or unhelpful in helping organizations manage these changes? Most of the projects we get engaged are transformational projects. And Lihakki Harrison brings expertise in the human side. How are you making them more successful? But most of the times when we come there in those organizations, a lot of decisions were made. And sometimes it's challenging for us to just go through these decisions because they bring the biases or the failures that we are having today regarding how the human element work in an organization. Can give an example of me. It's quite common to have those optimistic, overconfident projects that we look at the beginning and say, that is not going to happen because the human element is forgotten here. It's just not included. I can give other examples about digital transformation as one hot topic right now. And basic things we miss in those projects like, OK, you want to build this project and you want to deliver these new solutions or the new set of solutions in, let's say, two years. But where are you going to find those coders in this area here that you're not finding? So basic human elements that is sometimes quantity. But when you look to the soft side of that, like what kind of structure you need to build that? What kind of management practice you need to build that? How people will interact? What is the amount of uncertainty you don't are including in the system here? You see that the project, you fail from the beginning. So it's been my trajectory is how we started discussing and changed the way we look to management practices to incorporate those conversations about people. Before we start discussing the project, we look at that in a human dynamic instead of just look to them as something that needs to be delivered as a plan or something. It's a human process. It's a human journey. You need to bring this composition into a table. I see there are a lot of new methodologies that are coming, like agile development that came from technology or other things that are more humanistic. They understand a little bit more how is the dynamic among people and how they could work together in an emerging world that you don't know exactly what you're going to deliver. But you have half-intentional head. Where do you go and what do you build as you go? And you emerge as you go. There's some of these coming, but it's still this way when you have the technology. We're still seeing organizations use it then in the wrong direction. Agile is a good example. We are discussing that yesterday. And someone said, hey, do you know, I see that organization are using agile to justify their goals and not using agile to build their goals and build their organization. So there's still this human mindset predominantly coming from the old method, old management practices that are governing the way we operate in organizations. It's a big shift. And I just want to push you just to clarify something because I think your point about human nature is very interesting. But I think it's human nature to always underestimate how long a task is going to take or to overestimate our optimism or our ability or to kind of try to hedge our bets and not being able to see ourselves clearly sometimes. I feel like that's a very human thing. And so how can we in trying to see ourselves more clearly in trying to build systems that are more aligned with the realities of human nature? What's just like one thing or something that leaders can do to make sure that they're not sort of seeing themselves through rose-colored glasses? Yes, I mean, there are a lot of examples. I will choose one that we discussed on the people manifesto that is coming right now. That's about leadership. It's funny because when you see the predominant reaction of people about leaders, I need response from those people and I need them guide me where I need to go. And we're living like in an uncertain world, place where it's difficult to have responsibility for everything. But leaders, they feel pressure to give answers, to guide people, they're in the same direction. So, and usually I say, hey, I mean, leadership is being over-emphasized. Why? Because the dynamic doesn't happen like this. We're not having a certainty. Sometimes you need to step back and allow someone that is more used with the topic to lead you. I say that the main challenge for most of the leaders in the organizations today that respond to your question, sometimes is to step back and just follow. And we don't train people to follow. We train people to become leaders. You see all these leadership programs in organizations and at the end you create a lot of Indians, sorry, chiefs and no Indians. We can see the dynamic in a table where everybody wants to have the answer. And instead of making the questions and trying to figure out what is the thing right here, which are the evidence, which are the things that we need to conflict to get some agreement in order to move. So that's a good example. Sometimes that's a human dynamic. Sometimes you need to follow to have leadership working. Leadership as a process is not like projecting one person. And I think, I mean, that is often such a sensitive topic because who wants to point the fingers at the C-suite and say you might be your own biggest roadblock. And I think that definitely requires some introspection and reflection and asking yourself the hard questions as a leader, which I know can be a very challenging thing to do. So Susan Steele, your name. You sound like a superhero, which I love. Ricardo has talked about, sorry, Claudia was talking about the broad view that he's seeing about some of the challenges that leaders face in organizations. I feel like that's your mandate at IBM with dealing with talent. So could you maybe give us some experiences or give us what you're seeing in terms of employee engagement trends and how digital transformation is colliding with what talent wants and what they're looking for from their organizations. So what I see now is that the expectations that we all have in the workplace are of a very high consumer grade because we all have those experiences outside the workplace. So we bring those expectations into our organizations and for the most part, we're pretty disappointed. And we expect that systems will know us, will anticipate us and will be responsive to our needs. And for the most part, that doesn't happen. We're not finding learning platforms. We're not finding career advice platforms internally that know us and understand us. Likewise, we expect that we'll be able to really have personalized experiences around everything we want to do and that this will work out seamlessly. So I think in terms of employee engagements, the stakes are high. We see employees expecting to give net promoter scores everywhere they turn. They wanna give that instant feedback so that things improve. And again, organizations are not necessarily set up to ask for that feedback, much less respond to it. So I think that it goes back to this idea of how do we personalize all of this to both engage employees more generally, but specifically to help employees co-create and come together around transformation, which ironically in turn will continue to enhance employee engagement. And we know that now with some of the new AI that's available, this is becoming much easier to do and much more likely to have impact as well. So if I'm understanding what you're saying, there's a bit of a tension sometimes between top-down leadership of what the transformation vision is and then the expectation of employees to be active participants in shaping that vision and giving feedback at regular intervals. Yeah, exactly. And why do it that way? Why do this old-fashioned top-down model? We're sort of moving away from waterfall approaches into more agile approaches. So why not do the same with transformation? Why not sort of co-create and develop ideas and get buy-in and support that way from the get-go rather than having something that comes top-down, sort of cascaded in an old-fashioned way. So we're seeing that model change as well. And that's gonna, has that created bumps internally? You have a very large organization, has that? Well, actually, if anything, what we've been able to do is undertake much bigger, much more daunting transformations and let's face it, it's an organization that's going through a lot of transformations, but nonetheless, I'd say that we're better equipped to implement change now with this new ethos than has been the case in the past. Okay, so Vishal, another large, global organization. Can you discuss in your keynote earlier that HP has undergone significant transformation projects? I know you spoke a little bit about that in your keynote, but I wanted you to deep dive into some of the challenges and some of the bumps that you faced and how you address them. I mean, if you are fine with it, let me just take a little bit of a historic perspective on transformations, right? Because I know we've been talking about human side of transformation and transformations, and my mind is just one and the same, but let me take a little bit of a historic perspectives in terms of why transformation is important, right? And why change is going to be constant, right? I mean, if you just look at the last, just go back a few hundred years, right? Industrial revolution was, it was a technological advance that changed the way, just changed the way we live, right? And then in the last 20 years, if you think about, you know, we've had all this conversation about manufacturing moving out of the US, why did it happen, right? It happened because of two technological advances. One was the rise of large container ships, and the second was undersea cables, right? So every time there is a technological advance, there will be disruption in these locations, right? That's a fact. And now what's happening is that the rate of change is just much faster, right? So transformation, so companies that need to be relevant to their customers, to their employees, just need to change. And that rate of change, in my opinion, will be just very, very fast going forward. Just think about Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, Blackberry. I live in the technology world, so I have more technology examples, all out of business. And these are companies that started 20, 25 years ago, right? And the way I think about things is, unless we, as companies, are able to transform fast, we just won't be there, right? We can talk about the human side, or the economic side, or the financial side. It's important that all of it changes at the same time. Which is the mindset we took into the transformation at Hilo Packard, which is as our, as the competitive environment is changing, as customers are looking for new solutions, you just have to change at a rapid pace, right? And when we looked at it, it wasn't just about how we change our solutions, or our products, or our economic model, or our financials, or how do we rally the troops to go make that change? It all needs to happen together. So it was all, we just picked up all of it together and say, we, as a company, need to change. These are all elements that need to change along with it. In some cases, it was how do you get the folks to understand the magnitude of change required? And at the same time, get the relevant skills in the relevant places to go drive the transformation, right? So that's kind of how we picked it up. I can go more deeper into what we did. A lot of it was in terms of making sure that the employees were engaged. They understood the requirements for the transformation and why it was important. There was alignment. There were rewards, right? Associated with executing on the transformation. But I can tell you this, it's been tough, right? From a human perspective, from an employee perspective, it's tiring to go through transformations and it's pretty tough, right? But if people understand that you have to change to survive, you will change to survive. So I wonder, I mean, one of the biggest themes that I've been hearing from all of you has been this idea of speed. Everything has to move faster, react faster, be more responsive. But what are we losing when we focus on speed in terms of strategy? Is we race to keep catching up with the latest technological features where we sometimes ignore the human side or the human implication? What are some of the things that you feel as you watch these rapid transformations take place? What are we losing when we are chasing speed so much? I'll open it up. I can start with that. I think I mean, there is another thing that we maybe are treating in the wrong way. So when you see a gyro, at the end of the long process, when you understand the gyro methodology, it's not about you can gain speed and make the things more effective because it's emerging the process and you can gain speed because you don't create like those old two years project that with four months, you already know that it's going to fail but no one has the political capability to go there. Oh, it's not going to happen anymore. A gyro is much more like to avoid risk on this process. It is engaging, it iterate, and that creates agility. But it doesn't mean that people over there in these discussions need to be quicker than before. That's one point. And I think there's another mistake on this that is, we plan those things, we plan the change, we envision like those futures with more technology innovative. And we forgot that we people in general, when we talk about development or capability to change and transform, we are not like the Moore law that says that every computer should double their capacity in three years. We are not like this. I can tell you, I spent my whole life doing therapy since I was like 22 years old to change a little bit of my personality. Can you understand what I'm saying? I think there is a flawed vision here about how the human capability, there's a lack of understanding how that works. Human can create together. There's a lot of ways to put it, but it's not that individually that we will be faster, more smarter. It's not like this. It's a complete different dynamic. So let's just start. Richard, you wanna respond? Yeah, I think when we discuss that, we should also have as an underlying almost assumption that the track record of transformation is dismal, just dismal. I would assert that if you look at the broad basis. So that means we have tried now for many, many years to use recipes in some way that we got from management thinking. And of course there were very bright things. As we discussed earlier, theories, approaches or consulting companies come with the 10 steps you need to take and you walk through it and you try to transform this way. And I think if we are honest, we say no. I mean, it just didn't really work. There are very few cases where we can say this is really great. And if you look at the very recent case it was published in Harvard Business Review, the GE transformation, the big interview with Jeffrey Immelt just in December last year. And he said, well, I mean, it takes enormously long time and it takes enormous energy. So there are some factors which intellectually we have not accepted because management says, well, we are on a quarterly sort of trip and therefore we must show the results all the time. So the only final point I wanted to make to this is when we talk about changing paradigm and fundamental changing approach, we must ask ourselves what will be the high level approaches we have to take, how can we get away from this more or less standardized approaches where we try to implement something to something which is totally individualized for the context, for the environment of the company, for the human resources or human assets, however we may call it that they have for the skills, et cetera, et cetera. It needs something completely different and that's really a huge change, also in the way how we understand what the role of management is. So Susan and Vishal, I wonder if both of you when you hear Richard talking about the rate of success of transformation, what would you say your rate of success has been within the organization, both of you? Susan, you can. It's difficult, this has impact on the stock market when you say so. She's like, maybe after the live stream or at least during lunchtime we can get some. Listen, I think there's successful transformations and there's others that one learns from. But what I did wanna comment on is speed and I think that speed, disruption, this is the new normal, right? So now what we have in front of us is an opportunity to really help organizations, what I call sense and respond. So be able to pick up on cues and course correct as they go. And I think that's a capability that we're going to be seeing much more as hardwiring organizations for that sensing and responding to be able to correct and adjust on transformation as you go and therefore increasing the likelihood of success. Yeah, I would agree with that, right? I mean, I think the concept around transformations being continuous, I think is very important, right? It's not that there's a start and a finish to change programs, like I said, strategy is evergreen, but to implement strategy, you have to continuously change. I mean, and the speed of change, I agree, has increased. And it has increased because technologies have increased and technologies are permeating every single industry, right? And that's the reason this locations are happening. So my take is most, you know, if you think about transformation as a continuous program, I think you have a better chance of success. If you get your employees, because at the end of the day, corporations are made up of employees, right? If you don't get the employees engaged, you don't get them motivated, you don't build a case for change, you just won't be able to change, right? So it's ongoing, you have to get the entire workforce motivated and behind it. In some cases, there will be some leaders who will not make that change, right? So you have to just go and be much tough about changing out the workforce to get folks who are engaged in the transformation program, have the right skills. But those are the things that as leaders of large companies, you just have to go do, and it's an ongoing transformation in my opinion. There isn't a start or end to a transformation. Yeah, it's just a provocation on this point as well. I mean, maybe there is another paradigm shift here that sometimes I see a lot of companies concerned about the rate of success of their initiatives. And I mean, if you look to the human history, if you look to the innovation history, new inventions, it was all based on mistakes. I mean, we saw Alex talking about here about the amount of experience you need to do in order to have one unicorn. I mean, why we just don't accept that? I think companies lose a lot of not accepting that. There will be projects that we will start today and there is a huge change of failure. If you accept that, we can change completely the way we manage that. We will know that we will start a lot of projects, most of them we will fail, and that's part of the management process that will allow us to collect. Pursuing to have 100% of success, actually avoid companies to incorporate the uncertainty and avoid companies to discuss uncertainty and discuss possibilities and discuss mistakes and learn from them. I would say that the mainstream management practices to the organization are like this. I mean, they avoid people incorporating uncertainty, as Rita said some time today, in their way. I mean, they exclude humanity from the reality of organizations. And I think that was also Vishal's point when you talked about the history of transformation. As we improve the technology, oftentimes we just digitized outdated modes of thinking about work anyway. So our performance management skills, how we measure who succeeds the success of a project, if we just digitize that from the First Industrial Revolution that doesn't really take into account the technological realities of the information economy. Or the way employees interact with employers, or employees interact with technology. I mean, it's changing. If you just look at the workers who are in the workforce three, four years out of college, they interact with corporations differently. They interact with technologies differently. And unless you as a company are able to engage employees that way, you'll not get the right employees or in the talent. So what I'd like to do now is I'd like to open it up to some questions to hear what you think. And then that way we'll end the panel with some final thoughts from our panelists. But I see hands already, which is great. So let's take some questions. Thank you, it's a great discussion. I'd like to tee off something that Richard said and I appreciate it. It's maybe the standard 10-step approach that we've been following driving these changes isn't really working. I'd be interested in the panelists' reactions to, if you think about any change approach, they all seem to kind of rely on a common set of fundamental truths, things that we hold true. You gotta build that compelling case for change. You gotta align the leaders, et cetera. And as you're thinking about how you're driving change, how we have to this new digital world, et cetera. To what extent do you see its new tools and techniques and capabilities and ways to engage people versus challenging some of the fundamental assumptions, some of the basic principles of change? Who wants to tackle this question? Can we say both? I mean, I think we definitely should be challenging some of those age-old assumptions, especially as we look at org structures that are changing and leadership is maybe changing how it's structured and so on. And as we are engaging broader ecosystems in transformation, I think some of those age-old concepts maybe are ripe for some disruption. At the same time, I think what we can do with technologies and tools is unprecedented. So what we can do, for example, with sentiment analysis, so using AI to detect in any given population arising themes and trends and identify those that have a negative sentiment so that as leaders we can understand that and we can respond to that, we can fix that, we can address that. How fantastic is that? And that's something that's readily available now that was not available to us even a few years ago in leading transformation. So I think we can't overlook the impact of some of the new tools and technologies that are now available to help accelerate transformation. Let me add to that. In my opinion, you should challenge everything. I mean, unless you challenge everything, you'll never get there. That's kind of my opinion. And it's a case-to-case. In my opinion, formulas don't work. 10-point programs, 17-point programs are never successful because the strategy and execution of strategy and transformation are very much designed for purpose for the problem that you're facing. You cannot take an exam. You can take some learnings and apply it, but you cannot take formulas and apply it. But in my opinion, you have to challenge everything, the way the org is designed, the way you interact with your customers, the way you interact with your partners, the way you interact with your employees, the way you build products, the way you sell products. I think you have to look at it all the time. Everything should be on the drawing board all the time in terms of how you go about doing it. Not being said that you need some stability in the organization as well, but as you kind of make some changes, make sure it sticks for a while, but the top leadership of the company should be very open to looking at every construct in the company and thinking about how you can improve it. Yeah, one point I mean, I see usually what the traditional way that happens in most of the organizations, here's the change that we need to make, here's the strategy, and let's change the organization to face this strategy. And in the last maybe 10 to 20 years, we are seeing this discussion about the cultural organization or culture and how to set up an organizational culture. And I think that's a productive discussion I would say, but we are far to get like an answer for this. But what I would say is, instead of thinking about changing and transformation as you define the change, as it's impossible you define exactly how the change remains. I mean, if you look most of the change that leaders impose to organization at the end, two years, three years for now, it's completely different what the organization became when you compare it to the original idea. So why not like understand that culture can be prepared to do that? Why we don't start like crafting and provoking the organization to respond to change and incorporate that as part of the human dynamic that we are always transforming. But if you look like to most of the way, coming back to the mainstream management practices, we do the opposite. We have competence model. What's competence model? There's a way to kill diversity. You kill diversity because you have like those competence models that needs to bring people, diverse people, but at the end you filter them to have people that are quite similar to each other, as an example. So we start killing this possibility of having diversity. That's a key component of transformation, to have different thinking, to have provocation, different ideas. So if you look to most of the management practices, like budget, competence models, people review, all of them going against have an organization that could be more adequate for changing for transformation as we need right now. And if you think about like that, strategy is not something that I define here. Strategy is something, an idea that I have here that I would craft along the time and maybe there'd be a lot of change that you bring into a different direction. If you think we need more like this organization that is more fluid, I mean you saw that Roger in the first presentation was saying about more projects instead of jobs. If you look like we are a freezing organization to have this capability, we should start changing that. It's difficult, it's not easy, even because people are using it with that. Now I come from a country, Brazil, where we have culturally, what we call like hierarchical distances. It's not about how organizations are established, it's about how someone in the bottom expects the order come from the top. And be very honest, I came to the US and saw these large organizations, 100,000 people and I see the same. People most of the time are waiting for decisions to come and they execute. And that's not sustainable long-term for organization. You don't provoke, as he's saying, they start school, you don't provoke the things. It's just not sustainable, you know? So you need to have an stability, I agree, but you need to create attention for the other side. You don't solve this problem, you need to create attention and that is about crafting the culture to face that. So you avoid just talk about change when you have a project. You start talking before. Great, another question? Several. Maybe you can take several, because I don't know. So as we're moving towards the digital world, more and more it's changing how we operate and unfortunately there is a significantly larger impact on older members of our society. So if we think beyond the organizational constructs, right now companies are focused on upskilling or replacing or upgrading. At the societal level, who has the responsibility to upskill, especially older population, so they can stay engaged and active members of our society? Are those the organizations who have the responsibility or the governments or other institutions? Maybe I can respond. Sure, good. No, I would just say I think one principle and again this was, I'm referring to Peter Drucker. He's one of his pillars in his whole philosophy was under the heading managing oneself. So we have a society now where all the time somebody else should be responsible. I think at the end of the day it's us. It's the individual with an infrastructure which is somehow supportive, right? But you cannot manage the people, whatever generation they are in. There are huge problems with the very young generation right now who grow up with the mobile phones, with the smart phones and there's a new set of problems, not just the older ones. I find now very young kids, grandchildren, who don't want to be too much connected by the way. So there are all sorts of things happening. But I would say it's a question of self-management in an environment where you have good framework conditions. That's what the state should do, what the organizations should do, but the individual has a responsibility, that's my perspective. And I would add to that, I'm just gonna say that it's never been easier to learn. There's MOOCs, there's digital badges. So for the curious, regardless of one's age, it's never been easier. So I think if you couple the self-management, the self-direction that Richard alluded to, and the availability of learning for free or very little cost, it's a fantastic time now for reskilling and upskilling at all ages. Great, okay, let's try to get a couple more questions in before we wrap up the session. I wanted to start this question actually with the moderator. I see you're in your bio, you list yourself as an anthropologist. And so a question is, to what extent do you feel like we're bringing the wrong expertise to bear that we're not using anthropologists, psychologists, ethnographers, and the like to tackle these problems versus perhaps people that have more of a business school education. Great, you can collect your $20 for me after one. No, thank you, thank you for that question. I think for me the biggest issue that we often don't talk about is ethics and what is the world view? I mean I know Susan's talked a lot about sentiment analysis and predictive analytics, and to me it always goes back to the technology can do all sorts of things, but what it does has to be directed by us. And a lot of the times I find from a human centric we don't talk about the belief systems that the technologies we use already have and the belief systems that the technology amplifies in terms of what behaviors are we rewarding, what cultural values are we saying is acceptable. I see a lot of organizations in creative industries that are still pushing this billing where you have to justify minute by minute, which your time, which doesn't make sense in a highly cognitive creative field. And so I think now we're starting to see the need for a balance between, I'm gonna say progress and decency because the technology is gonna rush forward and it's gonna be able to measure everything and do everything we can dream of and more. And I think it's more of a case for slower decision making in a way because I don't really hear enough conversations about the ethical ramifications of employee privacy, of skills training. And just like the point about skills training, I think it's a responsibility that we have as a society. It's not just learning things for free, it's voting for politicians and administrations that are going to invest in closing the digital gap and making sure that there's broadband access to rural areas and that training programs are available, et cetera, et cetera. So one thing I would love for leaders to think about is the ethics of what are the values that we as a society are going to strive towards and what are the values that we're gonna bring to life from our technology? And I, of course, would love for organizations to use more digital anthropologists because a lot of the times the conversations become so focused on the tools, capacity, speed, decision making, analytical capabilities that we miss the very real human part of that. Does anyone else wanna comment before we do closing statements? Yeah, I mean, just a comment on this. I mean, there's a beautiful book of Akerlof and Robert Schiller, two economists, I believe they are Nobel Prizes, it's called Fishing for Fools, you know? And it's a really good book, Fishing with pH and Fool with pH, you know? And the theory behind what they say there is the economic of deceiving and manipulation. And they show that, I mean, when you have those tools or any kind of praxis in the society, if you don't have this discussion at the end, what happens is people, you use them to manipulate you. I mean, you know how many of those technology tools are just there to make you addicted to give them space for advertisement, you know that. So we are not having those discussions, I agree with you. I mean, we are not having this discussion about the impact we can cause in a society if you don't use that. Let's just see the recent impact of social media in so many political cases. I can see in Brazil right now that there's an important election coming. So we are not bringing that to the discussion, the human element, how we could craft that. So. Great, so we have just a couple of minutes left. So I'd like to very quickly end by saying, I know that we know that there isn't one perfect solution, a lot of blind spots, a lot of gray areas, a lot of complexity. But what I would like to ask each of the panelists is to finish us off with what's like one question that the people in this room can go and think about or one small thing that they can do when they go back to work in order to think about this or in order to figure out what a good next step is. So just a quick one question, one thing to think about. Richard, I'll start with you. Yeah, I'm not sure if it's something you can easily do, but I think one thing that in some way, because we talked about voting and about influencing, one of the big questions is, what is the context and the environment in which we make our decisions and in which we operate? And if you think about management and large organization, it's the current environment with all pressure on short-termism and all what you have. As long as we don't change that, some management practices will just not change. So whatever you can do and contribute to have this as a broader debate and don't leave it to Trump to discuss short-termism and long-termism because he has actually, interestingly enough, taken it up, but this is essential in what type of environment we operate as managers and leaders. So how can you challenge some of your time horizons within the organization? Susan, quick question for people. I would suggest that the question to ask is, to what extent do your organizations know and understand your people as thoroughly and as comprehensively as you know your customers? And if that's out of line, that tells you where to focus. Excellent, Vishal. As I said earlier, organizations are formed by people. So in my opinion, my biggest challenge has always been, how do I get access to the best talent? And I think as executives, we should always be thinking about, how do we get access to the best talent? Because once you get the best talent, I think everything else becomes easier. Maybe just to compliment me, every time you're making a decision about a new practicing organization, just ask, what am I creating? What are we are creating? What will be the spillovers? What will be the consequence of using this practice? What are you conditioned people to become if I do that? Just starting asking that. Great, thank you to all of our panelists. Thanks to all of you for your great questions and thank you to the people watching at home. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you to the panel. Thank you. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Vishal. Thanks, Vishal. Thank you. Thank you. So we are now very, very close to lunch. But just before we go to lunch, you probably have heard. Three weeks ago, we released in partnership with Coursera an online training on connecting strategy to results. And I'm very happy to announce. I don't have the numbers of today, but as of yesterday, we reached out to 2,000 students globally attending the course. And this course is sponsored by us. So there is no cost, so people can just attend. And I want just to share with you a one minute trailer of how the course looks like. We've got a problem. It's everywhere. And it's a big one. Only one executive out of 10 successfully delivers all of their organization's strategic initiatives. Why do so many leaders get it wrong? Because they ignore the gap between ideas and reality, between strategy design and strategy delivery. Brightline was created to help leaders address this gap. Led by the Project Management Institute, Brightline is a coalition of leading global organizations. We have partnered with Coursera to deliver a powerful online course. This free course is designed to help executives turn their ideas into reality. Brightline's 10 guiding principles are the power of delivery into your hands. These principles come to life through real world examples from around the globe and across sectors. Interactive exercises, challenging case studies, and insights from global industry experts who are the premier thought leaders on delivering strategy. It's time for you to join these leaders, register now, and turn your ideas into real results. One point I want just to highlight that several speakers here today, they donate their time to participate on this MOOC as partnering with us on that.