 So the question many of you have probably is how do you prepare for the future work and how do you prepare and run agility at scale in large organizations? Many of you from those types of organizations. So our next speaker claims we know what to do in theory. It's just when we start doing it that's where we hit the challenges that's when it gets messy. So he's an international consultant, facilitator, mentor, co-founder of Sociocracy 3.0. So let's hear it how to approach these challenges. Give it up for James Priest. Good morning. Good, good welcome. So welcome back. You're also familiar face. There's something going on with one microphone. I'll just scream instead. Feedback is a good thing. Feedback is a good thing, yeah. So what would be your feedback to the Agile people's Sweden conference? Because you've also been here a number of times. I've been here once before, two years ago. That's a number of times. Yeah, a number of time. Yeah, exactly. Well, I think it's awesome. I was so excited to hear you sold out two weeks ago. I remember speaking to Mikael in the last conferences and most of his fingernails were bitten off because I know you invest a lot personally into this conference for it to happen. So it's a big risk and I think it's really awesome. And I really love that we're underwater. It's good for the topic. Yeah, and it kind of like the metaphor of issues with hidden things underneath I think is really perfect. You know the iceberg. Yeah. But anyway, I diverge a little bit from the question Agile people conference. I think it's really cool and you guys are awesome. And I know that you're walking your talk. Yeah, and navigating by attention and learning as you go. So great. I'm not going to steal much more of your time. So the stage is yours. Okay, take it away. So talking of time, I've got my timer down here. Oh, that's the wrong picture. That's me and my son. But my slides are on my desktop. Has anybody got any ideas about that? You're the technical guy, right? Okay, so while you saw this is my son, by the way, we're in Barcelona last winter, watching waves. He's really beautiful and I haven't seen him for maybe three weeks and I'll see him again on Wednesday. So I'm looking forward to this. Okay, that's better. Great. So sure. Okay, there you go. Right. I'm all set. As Jürgen said, sometimes it's easier just to let somebody else do it. I completely agree. So I'm here to talk to you about sociocracy 3.0 today because that's difficult to say from now on. I'll call it S3. And what's known as the co-founder only because when myself and Bernard, my co-founder said, what should we call ourselves? We said, well, let's call ourselves that because that's what everyone else does. So we did. But basically, I would say we're more co-discoverers. And I've said many times probably at this conference when I was here two years ago, S3 was like an unplanned pregnancy. So whilst Bernard and I have a purely platonic relationship, nonetheless, there's a lot of love and we discovered something that we cared about very much, we're excited about and felt some kind of duty to evolve. So that's what I'm going to talk to you about today. And my intention is to give you some basic kind of framing and context so you understand a little of what I'm talking about to share a common language if you like. To look at some of the impediments that organizations face today in different dimensions of the organization, and then to give some generic examples of what, over the last two and a half years, I've seen people doing with Sociocracy 3.0 in practice. But before that, I was reflecting as always before I came on the stage, I felt slightly nervous. And I remember as a kid, I used to play in piano festivals. My mother made me do it. You know, it's like you have to play in these piano festivals and I was graded with 30 other kids and I used to be so nervous, I'd be sick sometimes and I would wait outside of the room until it was my turn to come in like trembling and shaking. And like nobody can play the piano very well trembling and shaking. I did win once, but most of the time not. Could somebody sort out this feedback. And I was reflecting on that just now and I realized, well, there's a very good reason why I felt nervous because I didn't want to be rejected and abandoned by my species. And I was thinking, does it make any sense today to feel nervous to come on the stage because, and I thought, well, I'm vulnerable, I'm going to be rejected once again by my species after the plank or something, you know, leave the boat. But it doesn't really make any sense anymore. You know, I've got a reputation. I do this kind of stuff all the time. And even if you don't like it, part of me doesn't care so much anyway really by tomorrow. Yeah, because I'm just sharing something I'm passionate about and you can take it if you like. So I was feeling this compassion. And today I said I was going to take a compassionate look at what happens for people in organizations because there's very good reasons why people behave the way they do. And I fundamentally believe everybody is doing their best considering their current context, what they've learned and what they know. It might be terrible. It might be shocking and appalling. But considering the context, what they know, I really believe everybody is doing their best. I'd like to just put in brackets there. Of course, some people are profoundly damaged. You know, some people are deeply traumatized and this leads to all kinds of behaviors. So I'm not saying everybody is competent all of the time. But nonetheless, doing their best. So, Sociology 3.0, effective collaboration at any scale. The good news is it helps. The bad news is it doesn't do it for you. Because the only thing that facilitates effective collaboration at scale is people. And S3 offers a bunch of guidelines and practices you can use alongside many other awesome guidelines and practices in the world. So, to understand a bit about what I want to talk with you about, it's helpful to understand the word Sociocracy. Some of you are familiar with this word. I know apart from in Sweden, not many people know really what it means. But nonetheless, rule by the demos. And Sociocracy ruled by the social group. So it's basically about bringing the power to the people affected by decisions. And it's got a long history. This guy, August Komp, first conceived of the term Sociocracy in 1851. I'm really dubious about his ideas around what that meant. He foresaw a future socios ruled by the social scientists and the experts. And he said it was inevitable. And he also thought it would be important to include the people. But I'm not sure if he meant conscious consent or just consent because. And a lot of the ways in which this guy influenced or is thinking influenced the world today is what gets me out of bed in the morning to hack it and change it. But he said it was inevitable. I don't think we're far wrong. We live in a world that's very much shaped by the social scientists. Pokemon, very good example. Sociocracy, I think I just need to mention, for those of you who didn't know from the 70s, developed the sociocratic circle organization method. And you can read a lot about that if you want to. And more recently, although Brian was rather quiet about the influence of Sociocracy on holacracy, we have holacracy emerging into the world. Another methodology. And finally, sociocracy 3.0. I was talking with Jurgen this morning about how Bernard and I discovered sociocracy 3.0. Bernard was wanting to put together a remix kit of ideas from sociocracy along with ideas from agile and lean synthesize them together to offer some value into tech. And we got together and quickly realized that these things alone were inadequate. Sociocracy was a method. It worked in certain contexts. Lean and agile, really awesome stuff happening. But how do you scale it through an organization? And we saw a way that we could evolve things. And basically the process of discovering sociocracy 3.0 informed us what sociocracy 3.0 was, which was basically guidelines for discovery in response to situations that needed some kind of response. And Jurgen will be happy to see. Are you in the room, Jurgen? Oh, good. I'll be gentle with my jokes then. I've been talking with Bernard from the beginning. Is it really a framework, Esri? It's a menu. It's like the 70 patterns. You don't put them all together. It's not like one thing. We say to people, start where you are in your area of greatest need with the people most inspired and engaged to try and pull in something and try it. And if it works, do more of it. If it needs to change, change it. And if it's not relevant, don't do it. So we had a conversation, Bernard and I, in Berlin these last days. And finally, I'm delighted to say, it's true. It's not a framework. Is this on film? He's going to have words with me. I know. It's flexible. It's like Lego. You can piece bits together. You can do stuff, bend it, snap it, change it. It's principles-based. Principles, guidelines for behavior. You notice I said guidelines, not values. We said, let's not talk about values. People might not value the principles. Everybody has different opinions around what's valuable and what isn't. It's the first place people polarize and get into conflict. So let's just talk about principles, because no one can argue with principles. They're just principles. And it's free. All the resources, materials of S3 are available, CC license. No formal S3 organization. Just Bernard myself and Liliana David, my beloved and partner who courageously and patiently tours around the world with me and together we share about S3. So menu of patterns. Basically, in the end, about facilitating co-creation and evolution. For human beings to co-create together and evolve things. And alongside that, then, there's patterns that enable co-creation. One of my favorite ones is artful participation. Or participate artfully. Can you raise your hand if you've heard of artful participation in the room? I mean the pattern. Okay, can you raise your hand if you think you participate artfully in collaboration? Yeah. So good question to ask, isn't it? Is my behavior in this moment the greatest contribution I can make to the effectiveness of this collaboration? And if not, what am I going to do about it in the next moment? This is artful participation. It's one of the co-creation enablers. But we also have patterns for facilitating peer development. Management 3.0 had 360s. It's a kind of adaptation of that. We have patterns for focused interactions. Bernard said, let's not call them meetings. Because people meet but they're not necessarily focused in their interactions. So we've got patterns to support people when they want to focus their interactions. And meeting practices that help people to be effective when they do so. Patterns for defining agreements. Patterns for organizing work. All stolen from agile and mean. Patterns for building organizations, building blocks, circle, role. Role is optional in S3, by the way. You don't need roles in an organization. You just have them if they're helpful. Patterns for organizational structure. I just mean patterns for flowing information and influence in valuable ways. And finally, patterns for bringing in S3 if you want to do that kind of thing. The other thing that would be helpful for you to understand before I get into the meat and potatoes of today is the principles. And equivalence is basically the same as the root of sociocracy. It means people affected by decisions being the ones to make and influence those decisions. Can you imagine a world where we have social structures where people affected by decisions are able to make and influence those decisions when they see reason to do so? Can you imagine a world like that? I don't know if you're thinking about it. If you're recovering from coffee. But when I think about this, it just blows my mind. Because when I compare it to what we see in the world today, in general, it's like two different universes. Consent means the absence of reason not to. So we don't want people to influence things when there's no reason to influence things. But when there is a good reason to change things, as Jörgen was saying earlier, people change. So let's identify when there's reasons to change things and consider changing them. Because who wants to do things when there's a reason not to? Transparency. So we know what's happening and when there's a need for change. And these three together lead to accountability. People want to be accountable for things they have a sense of ownership over. And when people are able to participate, to guide, to influence, they take ownership and then they want to be accountable. We don't have to make people accountable. You don't have to make Jörgen accountable for agility scales. You don't have to make me accountable for S3. I just do it because I love it. I'm intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. Empiricism. I don't have to go into that in an agile conference, do I? And using, like, test our hypothesis in practice and use it to continuously improve so that we can be effective. So that we can do the right things in the right ways. Not just in the moment but effective in the big picture. What's the consequence of this pebble when I throw it in the water? How do I make sure that those ripples land in the way that I would wish and choose? You've seen these words before? So for me, when I came into sociocracy, these were words that were more familiar for me. Well-being and fulfillment. And one day I was talking to a corporate consultant. He said to me, James, if you're going to pitch S3 to the corporate sector, you need to talk about performance and alignment. And I was like, okay. It's not 500 hippies in an organization dot voting? No, not true. I didn't imagine that. Yeah, but I was very much focused on this, the people. I thought, okay, well, I can slice this, performance and alignment. It's like in my relationship with Lily, if we're not aligned, we run into all kinds of problems. Is anyone in a personal relationship here in the room? Yeah? Have you noticed if you're not aligned on things that can get really difficult? Yeah? That angel you fell in love with is like suddenly this demon. Or you're the demon, you know, and you're so ashamed. And performance, well, performance in relationship, useful. But I mean, are you doing what you want to do? Are you able to achieve the things that you want to achieve together? So I thought, okay, fair enough, I can see this is relevant in any context where two or more people come together. In fact, actually, it's relevant just on my own. I mean, I'm often unaligned in light of my own internal contradictions. Yeah? And some days, I don't achieve anything. So I guess it counts for us as individuals as well in our intra-psychic universe. But considering performance and alignment and well-being and fulfillment of people, I mean, I want to feel good. I want to feel well. I want it to be nourished. I want my basic needs and preferably my aspirational needs to be met. And I also want to feel fulfilled with my day, like it has some kind of meaning. I got to thinking, what are the different dimensions in organizations that we need to consider? So I like all good ideas. They end up being mine, but I should say we, Lily and I got to thinking. Yeah. And we identified four dimensions. You might identify others. But agility, participation, agreeing and doing. And agility, basically, just to be able to respond quickly to changing context. Yeah? This is what we're talking about with agility and participation, like building and maintaining engagement and accountability. How do you keep the flair of the founders when you're a 50,000-person enterprise? And more important, how do you tap collective intelligence? 50,000 people. That's so much intelligence in the space. So how do you tap that to create and evolve effective decisions and do it in an inclusive way so people feel on board and they remain engaged and want to be accountable? And alongside all of that, how do you still get shit done? Yeah? How do you do what needs to be done to create maximum value? Well, I think in agile, in my experience working across sector, agile is the sector where people I think are most skilled up in getting shit done. Not necessarily the right shit, but getting stuff done. So Mikael said to me, James, when you come, can you talk about the future of organizations and be inspiring and say what is? And I was like, yeah, I can, but if we're not honest about our predicament, if we're not honest about the challenges that we face, then it's very difficult to look clearly about how we're going to solve them. So I thought, I'd ask people what they thought were some of the impediments to these different dimensions. And I don't know if I'd go through all of them because there were so many, but I just put a few on the slides. Unclear contracting. Yeah? Well, you never told me that was what I needed to do when I joined the organization. Yeah? Or oh, you never told me I had to do things, so I thought we're self-organizing. I can do whatever I like. Undefined domains of autonomy and accountability. Not mine. It's yours, not mine. Yeah? I don't know what I'm accountable for. Yeah? Or I don't feel free to move because I don't know how much space I actually have. And clarity, who does what? Flow of information and influence misaligned with the flow of value. You know, Toyota, stop the line. Isn't that just the most common sense idea you could ever imagine? Oops, drop the nut into the engine, stop the line. Rather than, oops, drop the nut into the engine. Excuse me, boss. I dropped the nut into the engine. Oh, wait a minute. I'll just, oh, I can't get an answer right now, but maybe by next month we'll be able to get through to somebody. And meanwhile, the car goes out. We lose all our customers because it's a crappy car and everyone stops buying. So how do we align flow of information and influence with the flow of value? Good question. Siloes and out of silos, unaddressed dependencies and double work. Yeah? It's like I see radically agile teams in organizations, but they're independent entities. Yeah? They're not addressing the dependencies between teams. They don't even have mechanisms in place to do so. And sometimes they even rail against it because it jeopardizes our autonomy to have those conversations. And then we end up with double work. We end up with misalignment. We end up with less performance. People unfulfilled. Yeah? And people feeling less well. Mandating methods and structures and trying to fit people in. I mean, what kind of stupid idea is that? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but don't tell me how to live my life. Tell me how you live your life. And if there's something of value in that, then I might consider it. And when me living my life impacts you in a way that you would prefer to be different, let's have a conversation about it. Let's learn. It's like applying agile mindset to relationship, applying agile mindset to collaboration, making evolving agreements. I mean, agile, I mean, it's like it's an interesting word, but isn't it just helping us to become conscious of how to live in intelligent and compassionate ways? I mean, life is agile, though. And then we got this mind and the capacity to reflect and travel through time and space. And I suspect that right now we're in a terribly infantile moment in our potential development, which is entirely unguaranteed, is going to go any further. Agile is just the way life does it. And we would do well to remember it's not something to learn, it's something to remember in us. So I'm going to move on. I'm telling myself, James, move on, move on. So participation. Lack of feeling gains and costs. Are you in an organization where you have a direct relationship to the gains and the costs? It's no wonder people aren't extrinsically motivated if they don't feel a connection to the value that they create. There's a disconnection from the bigger picture, no influence, even when it makes sense. Oh, but I won't say because maybe it would cost me my job. False autonomy. Yep, go for it. Oh, but no, stop. You know what I'm talking about? Inadequate feedback and appreciation. You were awesome today. It was amazing. Thank you so much for the value you created. And hey, you know, when that happened, can I offer you a suggestion about how to be even more awesome tomorrow? Fundamentalism. I'm right. You're wrong. I mean, okay, we're in Sweden. Like, we've got radical egalitarianism instead. But the shadow of radical egalitarianism is fundamentalism. Yeah, it's just, you don't explicitly judge people anymore. Identification with individualism or collectivism. I mean, either or. Radical individualism. Yeah, then like, big mistake, radical collectivism, big mistake. Too much of one compromises the other every time and we need to learn to find balance between the two. Agreeing. You might not agree with me on this, but that's fine. Unclear why. Disagreement about what and how. Poor decision-making skills. In fact, you know, when I said about Lily and I, Lily and I, we can be in an argument for hours sometimes. I mean, that's how evolved and developed we are. And at some point we'll say, hey, but what's the why? Why are you arguing? Yeah. And why are you arguing? We're arguing about two different whys. So clarify the why and then focus on the what and the how. Poor decision-making skills. Binary thinking. Sociocracy is about both and more thinking. Seeking perfection. Agreements made. We made awesome agreements, but we didn't do anything and we didn't write them down. We didn't remember them. Lack of feedback, evaluation and learning because we didn't write them down, didn't remember them and we didn't do anything anyway. Two busy firefighting consequences of poor decisions. This is one of my personal favorites. James, we don't have time to do governance. We don't have time to learn how to make and evolve agreements better together. Why is that? We're too busy. Why are you busy? Well, we've got loads of fires to fight. Why are you fighting fires? Because they're burning. But why are they burning? Because of all the shitty decisions you made. And disconnect between decision-makers and people doing the work. People affected by decisions being the ones to make and influence those decisions. People doing the work, being able to make and influence the decisions that guide the work because they have experience in that work. More than people from an abstract perspective looking in often. Oh, and radical autocracy or consensus. Same thing. Consensus, the one who blocks is the autocrat. Autocracy is explicit. We just know who it is to start with. And finally doing activities based on unvalidated assumptions, both short and long-term. Is that familiar for anybody here? We develop our features based on speculation and need to validate assumptions earlier. Lack of reflection and learning, inadequate communication, doubling work, lack of transparency. I mean, that's a big impediment in doing work effectively. And clarity about how to organize work. I mean, that's probably how many people in this room are making a living right now is going out there and helping people learn some basic practices to be able to organize and prioritize work in effective ways. Poor prioritization. Push rather than pull. Now, Jürgen was telling me he made his presentation like 18 times this one and 150 for the managing for happiness or something like this. And I said, oh, I changed my presentations every time because I learned new stuff and I want to challenge myself. So last night I was putting together this slide deck and I came across this idea, well, wait, what are some of the meta issues here that stand in the way? And one of them I realized was lack of respect for eldership. And I don't mean lack of respect for older people. I'm getting older now, so I hope that there's some respect for me in time. But I mean lack of respect for wisdomship, we could say, the wisdom of those who have walked a journey and bring that wisdom to the organization. And also the lack of respect for youth, lack of respect for the unadulterated mind, the open space of possibility. And the other thing I thought, well, we're living in a social institution. You're living in a social institution. And that social institution is designed to create a consciousness where people live in a state of perpetual infantilism, projecting power and accountability onto something other than themselves or mercilessly onto themselves and colluding with the status quo. If anyone here felt a bit pissed off about the 0.01% and looks out there and thinks, oh, the people at the top are causing the problems and so on, then that's projecting power and accountability and colluding with the status quo. Because it's basically saying, you are more powerful than me. I don't have the power to change things and therefore I'm going to gripe or conform with you. Who's accountable for that? You are. Who's accountable for the collective condition we face today? We are. And there is no way organizations will be anything other than pyramidic command and control structures until many, many more people realize what it is to be personally accountable and realize how awesomely powerful they are and how together how awesomely powerful we are to co-create and change the world in virtually any way we can imagine. But a caveat, habitual behaviors and strategies eat common sense for breakfast, especially when vulnerable. My story, feeling anxious coming on the stage. There's good reasons why people behave in the ways that they do. We need to be compassionate. Otherwise, we fall into another form of fundamentalism. It's like the New Age movement, the integral movement, the consciousness movement. And now I'm more conscious than you because you're acting out of your habitual patterns and strategies. And true compassion requires a balance between being honest and allowing others to suffer in the way they choose. So that said, I'd like to get into some examples of ways in which we see people in organizations pulling in patterns from S3. And could you raise your hand if you're connected somehow to S3 and pulling in patterns in organizations today? That's cool. There's a few of you in here. Great. Okay. So I'm not going to name specific examples or specific companies. I don't want to do that, but I want to just talk a little bit more generally about what's happening. So driver, also known as the why, the motive for responding to a situation. You are perfectly designed to identify situations that require a response because when something looks different to what you expect or what you want to see, then you are motivated to do something different. Run away, fight, freeze, or more creatively change it in some way. So we see people describing these motivations for action in brief statements, which we call a driver statement, which is basically a simple description of what's happening and what's needed. It's like a little bundle of data that we can write for ourselves and then share it with other people to share information in a coherent way. This is an example I referenced earlier. We're creating ways to develop some unnecessary features based on speculation. We need to agree on ways to validate our assumptions earlier. When the team named this, they said, yes, that's exactly what we think is happening. And we agree loosely speaking that this is what we need to do. Yeah, didn't tell them what to do yet, but it just identified what was happening in the area of deficit. So driver statement seems to be a very popular way for people to clarify the why. Another thing we see is that people realize, well, if we're identifying things happening and things needed, then it's useful to pass that information around to the people most able to respond. So we see people passing on these driver statements to the people they believe are most able to respond. And then these people either make and evolve decisions around that, which in turn leads to some kind of action or just directly act if there's existing decisions that guide how to deal with that kind of thing. And also the same for people in roles. It's like your to-do list. Your to-do list is basically a list of drivers. It's just generally you have the what's needed part and not the what's happening part. Yeah, I need to call James, but if you add, I spoke this opportunity came up yesterday and I think it's going to benefit us. I need to call James. This makes a coherent driver statement. Another thing we see then on that topic of deciding or acting is groups of people asking, would it benefit from a group decision or just a decision? If yes, then we call this governance. Governance is basically deciding stuff. Yeah, it's like deciding what to do and setting the constraints about how to do it. And if no, then it goes in an operational backlog to be processed and done. People seem to find it helpful to distinguish between the two. One, like because it avoids getting roadblocked in delivering value when you need to be deciding how to deliver in value and vice versa. But two, because it creates a coherent record of what was happening, what was needed, what was decided so that when you evaluate it later, you can get back there and remember why you were doing it to start with. Another thing that's very distinct about sociopathy in general is it shifts the power in a group of people from a manager making governance decisions to a group of people, including the manager, making governance decisions, often a facilitated process to co-create good enough for now, safe enough to try agreements together. So looking at the dimension of agreeing, clarifying the why, co-creating agreements, creating a sense of shared ownership, tapping collective intelligence, onboarding people into the process, coming up with good enough for now, safe enough to try decisions, the absence of reason not to, and experimenting and learning in practice and applying learning to continually improve those decisions. It's basically applying agility to your decision making, the same as you would apply agility to your product development. Also, it's not about doing governance for governance sake. Why would we want to clarify the why and then define the constraints on how so that we can have less governance and so that people can get on with doing stuff for themselves? In my opinion, good governance frees human beings up to be able to decide and do for themselves as much as possible. And only when it would benefit from or necessitate a group decision would we ever take the time to call on our peers and do that. And when it would, let's do it. And if we're healed from our wounds of horrible and productive meetings, then it becomes inspiring to do as well because we just get mutual value through the process. So there's a bit of a paradox because in order for us to be free as human beings, we actually need some clarity on structure. And that's a bit of a shock to some people who are coming out of a command and control paradigm and saying, I never want to be in a cage again, to realize that actually if you don't clarify domains of accountability and autonomy, it's very difficult for people to be able to be free and act in ways that are in integrity with everybody else. So we see people delegating work to people in domains. Yeah, it's basically what managers do. No, they delegate work to people in domains. And these people taking accountability through mutual contract. And in order to clarify those domains, it's very useful to use a domain description. So many organizations I'm working with today, one of the first things we encourage them to consider is clarifying their domains. I ask people, what's your role about? And they say, Well, I kind of do this and that and the other and I say, Well, okay, so this is happening and this is needed. What are your key responsibilities? What are the things that absolutely must be done and that you take care of? And what are the constraints on your domain? At this point, people start to scratch their head because a lot of people don't even have clarity on what their key responsibilities are. And even if they do, they don't have clarity on what another person's key responsibilities are. And more importantly, what are the constraints? It's like how much freedom do I have? How much space do I have enabling constraints and where are the limits governing constraints and prefer quality skills and experience. So if that person vaporizes today, you've got a record of the kind of quality skills and experience that would be useful in the future. And we also have review dates of everything in S3 agreements, domain descriptions, reviews for people who are serving in some kind of role or in some kind of team and evaluation criteria. So on the topic of agility, then we're talking about clarifying domains. If we want to achieve enterprise agility, we need to be able to flow information and influence through the path of least and most direct, least resistance, most direct to the people most able to respond. So we link between domains and we discover the organization that wants to emerge as a consequence. So if this was you and your startup and you're navigating via attention, you don't need to design the organizational structure up front. You just discovered drivers and then you start doing stuff. You start creating circles, groups of people, you make agreements, you create roles. And as people navigate via attention, they respond to these different drivers in the way people in organizations have always responded to different drivers with roles, with agreements, with groups of people. Open domain, we have Bonita Roy, who will be talking about open locations this afternoon. So you're going to learn much more about that kind of thing from her than I could ever tell you. And we see this state of constant emerging organization. One pattern for organizational structure that I really wanted to share with you because I'm so excited about it is what we call the delegate circle. Delegate circle, when you have four domains and you need to deal with dependencies between those domains or drivers that concern the wider organization, people create a circle, they select representatives to handle all of those high level issues that the organization needs to deal with. It's basically a group of people fulfilling advisory board function, executive board function. But now from a bottom hierarchy with no managers, just people doing it for themselves. We have selecting people for roles. I'm not going to go into that today, but basically selecting people on the strength of the reason. We talk about job security in S3, but not necessarily role security. That's a benefit to the organization, but also to people, because it enables them to play to their strengths and current interests. And to support people in roles or groups of people to learn and grow, we have the peer review, which is basically initiated by the people in those roles or teams to invite participants, share about what they're doing, get feedback on what people appreciate, get feedback on what can be improved, co-create development plans, check they're good enough and integrate them as part of the strategy. This is a very popular pattern we see in organizations, and I'm inspired when a C is the first person to do it in an organization and invites an open fishbowl for people to come and observe it for themselves. So participation, in my opinion, is a natural outgrowth of addressing the other three dimensions. But if you focus interactions, if you provide a space for people to contribute, you build collaboration. And people naturally want to learn and grow together. So I mentioned at the beginning, artful participation. In my opinion, it's the simplest and the most challenging pattern in the S3 menu. Is your behavior in this moment the greatest contribution you can make to the effectiveness of this collaboration of our species? And if not, what might you do differently from this moment on to improve, including interrupting, objecting and breaking agreements? So, I'm James. That's my presentation. We have one minute left. And thank you very much for your attention. All right. Thank you very much. I was just sitting wondering when this finally this slide came up, because I was, where's the summary of all these juicy stuff? Which one do you find working with a lot of organizations is the most tricky one here? Which part? It entirely depends. Yeah, it really depends on the organizational context. If I'm working with NGOs, like NGOs, nonprofits, more socially orientated groups, then participation is often high for a while. They get roadblocked here, but they spend all their time saying they're doing it. They don't get so much done, and they're not really able to handle changes very rapidly, because they're bound by consensus. If I'm looking at tech companies today, then I see this weather front between a very pyramidic sort of business end that's very old school. I think for very good reasons sometimes, at least in their minds, there's a very good reason why, and super agility on the doing level, but the agreeing especially across the system really sucks. Yeah, and participation tends to break down and just isolate within the teams themselves. So it entirely depends on the context, but everybody's different, and I'm constantly surprised to hear of people's challenges and also where people's strengths are in organizations. And you'll be deep diving tomorrow as well, will you? Yeah. So have a workshop tomorrow. My intention is to, we're going to have a kind of slightly deeper introduction to S3. We're going to focus on making an evolving degree together in the morning, but then in the afternoon I want to open that up, and basically people bring their areas of greatest challenge, and we'll use that as something to hang S3 patterns on and in the moment kind of live, learn through looking at how these patterns can support in different ways for people to leave with some value that they can start using straight away when they go. All right, just to get back and start doing. Yep. All right. Well, thanks a lot, James. Super interesting. A big hand for James, please, please.