 Hello, everyone, and welcome to today's webinar, Strategy at Work. Today's presenter is Claudio Garcia. Claudio is the Executive Vice President of Strategy and Corporate Development. He has the responsibility for Lee Hecht Harrison's business strategies and to identify sources of innovation and growth for the company. Claudio served for seven years as Executive Vice President of Latin America Operations and as President of Latin America for DBM. Claudio developed his career in a diversified range of segments such as financial industry, entertainment, media communications and beverages in different areas from finance to operations. Claudio graduated with a degree in civil engineering and a postgraduate degree in business management. Welcome Claudio. Welcome, welcome everybody. Thank you so much for the introduction. I just want to say a few words about my company just to understand what we do and why I'm here talking to you. So Lee Hecht Harrison is a global organization. We are in 64 countries and primarily what we do is we support large organizations mainly in major transformation but in the people perspective of the transformation. You know, when you have major transformations we have what we say the pain again, you know, user transformation is looking for something that is better for the organization or something that will make the organization more competitive, different. But that comes with a lot of pain, not only because transform is challenging for people but because there are a lot of challenges and conflicts and things that happen in the organizations. At the same time that they are looking for something better. The difference of Lee Hecht Harrison, that's the reason I'm here talking to you is we attend close to 12,000 clients a year, and we support individually 400,000 individuals every year so we have a lot of data that we collect to try to raise and try to figure out what the organization are doing, what they are facing and what is helping them to succeed in this environment that we are living right now. An environment of a lot of transformation happening, a lot of uncertainty, a lot of instability, so what is going on in the organization, what is the way they are moving, what is succeeding right now. That's all what the Hecht Harrison tool. I specifically I run corporate development and strategies so I'm looking how we grow the organization this environment, what that means I'm constantly. There are two sides of my job one is that defined a strategy the other is okay how we make this strategy a reality. And as my corporate development title says I mean I look for a lot of acquisitions it could be a large acquisitions that could put us in a better condition in a geography. It could be a lot of small acquisition both on acquisition that can bring some product solutions that can make us more competitive in the micro we have these two sides. The other thing that my role does is all the lead all the product development all the solution development I have a team only take care of developing a new solutions to the market to the 64 countries that we operate. And we usually choose to go this way if you don't identify any acquisition that would make sense so I'm just commenting because what I'm trying to bring here is exactly what we see your clients is what we live the difficulties and the challenge. So I was, I would try to just face we have a title that this is the people first strategy for transformation. And you understand why I'm saying people first strategy for transformation. It's a, it's like a different mindset that people don't think when they think about strategy I mean I know that a lot of this being discussed about strategy right now. I mean there is a shift that maybe we need to consider when you think how to move ahead with strategy. So, going to the first slide here. It's really important to slide because we always need to ask what we understand about transformation is something that a lot of organizations discuss, but it's really important when we define what kind of transformation you need to pass through, and which are the consequence for your organization so this slide here is not new is something that was developed by two former consultants in 1989 I believe, as you can see here the sauce in the bottom, but basically they said that there are three kind of transformations. What they call transformation that this horizon one, two and three. Basically, if you look here in this graph you have on the X. So the knowledge of solutions that is okay. How much you know a method the process of the technology that is available in the market. And in the yx you have the knowledge of neither of the user of a client. And basically when you talk about the horizon one and two and three years horizon one is basically when you, let's just give me a minute, just see when you have like improvements extension variants and cost reduction. I mean all this is small incremental improvements that we do in organization that comes with like this mindset of Lee manufacturing total part management. You create groups of teams to work to improve a specific input, but that exists in an area that you know you know the process you know the solution you can prove the solutions. It's something that is currently serving your client so there's not big new here it's small incremental new things in the organization. The horizon to, although it's a little bit further is something that exists in the world is something that you know your clients need you know I mean the processes the resource are really with the market is just something that you don't play right now, and that will require a learning of new things that you know exist in the market, you can acquire them, you can train people, you can implement the process you can acquire new software. But that that exists that's prove it is just an extension of your market I think the main concept that is related in strategy to horizon to is a concept that came from a bank company that is called beyond, beyond the strategy is something similar to that that is how you expand your organization just things that exist and then can create a vertical offering to your clients or can more complimentary offering to your client that you don't pay today or even the strategic areas that you should play to protect your business and things like this. So that's horizon to. And finally, we have horizon three, the horizon three is completely different from those other two because we are talking about things that is not clearly defined in the market, we are talking about new solutions that will try to address problems that and needs that you maybe you it's a hypothesis you're trying to cover something that you think it will become a market an investment market. So, here you play with uncertainty here you're playing with things that you have an idea you have a bad to do, but there is no reference there is no reference you cannot acquire, you need to develop yourself. There is a lot of risks. There are a lot of failures because you're trying new things. So that's the horizon three that's pretty much what we are seeing right now with like those big unicorns and those transformations in the technology technology space that we are seeing the last year you know a lot of companies coming to business models that we don't know if it's going to work or not at the end. So I'm saying here about those three horizons because depending what you decide to how you decide to move ahead you have completely different ways to move for each of them. So, if you think like that, that's the project, the columnist love that the Jacob that what they say is I mean everything that you try to learn new things. It takes a while I mean, usually at the beginning you perform worse and you perform was because you don't know how to perform with a new process or if a new product in a new industry. So it takes a while to you understand how to perform you have an idea that that will bring more productivity to you in the future, and that's the way it goes. So, and of course when you think about that, what I'm saying here is there's a learning good but when you think about that, you're betting that investing and acquire new capabilities to incremental gains you have better, better productivity better efficiency in the future. And of course, the pen is the maturity of this technology if that's available, you can define exactly what what you need here. So technology which are the processes, which are the people that you need you know if the skills are available internally, externally, if you can gain those things through acquisitions, so on so far, you know, and even the mindset if you want to play if there is a shift here or not. So, but if you think about this jerk, Jacob, that is different when you think let's say about the horizon one horizon one incremental improvements, it's quick, the most a few years. But quickly, you know that that we bring new productivity there is a learning good because people are learning things but quickly you put there, the technology is available, the process available and you know how the cost of development the acquisition you can do a business plan a short business plan a business case. That is more the way to this case. So you know which are the skills that you need is low cost of development is tangible in the firewall, you know, and the mindset is the mindset is incremental. That's the pretty much like maybe that's the most well know way to talk about this horizon one that's the Toyota way you know people do incremental things that brought Toyota to a completely new stage of competitiveness and productiveness. So that's I think is the main reference we talked to. So horizon two is not that quick, you know, even if you try to go to an industry that you don't play, but you need to go there, you can just acquire company but acquire company means you need to integrate the company it takes like few too many years to do that. But if you are going to develop by yourself the same, you know, but you know that the technology is available in some house accessible can be expensive but it's there. The same about the process about these kids I mean they're available as well. And maybe it's can be sometimes disputed because we have all the organizations that want to acquire them so maybe you can like today when you go to AI or some areas of technology. It's there. I mean some of them are there but they are expensive, but they're there you know what to do you know what you need to hire. And the mindset here is a paradigm shift sometimes you need to operating with a different paradigm. And that will require some transformation management or cultural management things that are required more efforts. Here's the best example I'd say, I mean G, I mean if you look like how G expanded the business along like 34 years, acquiring companies invest in new sectors, verticalize some sectors, going from manufacturing to services to into banking. I think G is what represents the best for model for what we're talking about the horizon tool. They knew they'd already existed. They had some innovation of course but they knew they'd already exist they went there and acquire those companies and invested in new technology that were there. Now horizon three, you know horizon three is as I said take it could take many years. It's difficult to know I mean there's some horizon three that were successful in few years but most of the case we are talking about a long time here of investing, trying new things, because you don't know exactly what is the technology low maturity intangible I mean, sometimes high cost development the same about the process operation is emerging is not defined yet you need to invest to define them. The skills I mean the skills are scarce in the market when you think about blockchain, all the revolution blockchain can play in logistics and currency in a lot of place. Until two years ago, the only available consulting three years ago only available consulting in blockchain was a group of students from Stanford, we're talking about like 10 people that were like venturing in develop applications for blockchain. So in the mindset here is disrupting we're talking about a complete different way to go. And that's the reason most of those horizon three things come from organizations that are complete out of the mainstream organization right now because sometimes just difficult to make people think in a complete different way. So I mean some examples that I can bring here I mean you were we walk or slack for example. And what's interesting is all those companies are still bad thing that they will be successful I mean none of them of those three companies is profitable are profitable none of their profit or yet they are still believing that their model will succeed somehow in the future. I mean the only case here that I include here that some of them gets get there, like the BNB BNB is profitable is a model that's proven and expanding and impacted their other competitors traditional places in hotels and other kind of chains. So, but as a, it's something that requires sometimes a lot of cash to make sure to try and to make sure you can get success in the future. So come back here to the three horizons you know the big challenge today, even for those companies playing horizon one and two is horizon three is creating a lot of references that the clients customers are getting to the conversation with horizon one and two companies. I can give a short example like when you think about Amazon that did a lot of horizon three create like the whole infrastructure in e-commerce is, I mean if you go to the Walmart or any other competitor in retail, you want to have the same experience as Amazon or in any other industry when they they disrupt the sector. What happened is you go to other competitors in the traditional models or similar services, you expect the same level of service you expect the same innovation so what's happening right now is that horizon three is making more difficult to horizon one and horizon two to innovate and to grow strategically. The point is, when they try to do that they have a really big question mark that is how we do that, because it's nothing or it's something that is not completely available in the market. So what that means most of the organizations are moving to horizon three by pressure for survival, because even if a company horizon three is not profitable is creating a completely different reference of an experience that will impact the other providers. So what exactly is the challenge here. So, basically me if you look at strategy the main mindset is still predominant in the market is you do a strategy design you know what you want, and you create your talent strategy live. So, and when you define your time to strategy to define a competence model organizational culture for your defining what's your culture, you say okay I need to bring people that fit with my culture so I can gain synergy speed. So I don't have entropy in under my organization. So I need to focus on the engagement, but the challenge is, if you want to thinking horizon three if you have an organization need to think about the future. Thinking about thinking about something that you don't know, as I said some big question mark it's moving to a certain future and that's more what we're seeing organization right now. You don't draft your strategy you draft an intention, and you try to move to this intention in a discovery process in a discovery journey process where it iterates the market and see what's works and what doesn't work. When you try to improve and at the end you'll get something that you didn't imagine in the beginning. So it's much more like iterative as I said, then something that you know what to do from the beginning. You see like big companies like Tesla, or even like right now, companies that are trying to venture in this space of autonomous vehicles is, they always delay the when they are going to launch because as they move they discover a lot of new things that they didn't think it would be possible because of the policy it could be logistic barriers, technological barriers so that's the process that organization have instead of that what we are seeing a movement, and methodologies like agile management agile development design happening is the other side is having the talent strategy. First before doing the design of the strategy what's happening is, and that was said by Harry meets back in 1992 with the rise and fall of strategic planning organization should stop like thinking and be more concerned about strategy making. So you do the strategy as you iterate with the market with your customers with your clients. So that's a completely different model because that puts what you need to define about the strategy before you moving ahead you don't know exactly which are the future, but you need to start thinking before. And I can comment. Most of you have have have seen before that a lot of people say diversity is important diversity like more different point of views. And that's true. I mean, the diverse time trying to use right now when I see when I say about the things is not specifically about gender race, other kind of diverse that are important as well. There are a lot of social and important things that are important here but I'm talking more about heavy people with complete different backgrounds that can help organizations think about the future that they don't know is bring completely views of the world to the table. So, and when you think about that we have a different way to think about talent is not to be telling the strategy is not something that you define when you have the strategy design is you need to have a way to move forward before that because this strategy will make you successful with strategy making. So we are talking about here, the cultural diversity absorption. I mean, here the rule is, what's my capabilities as an organization to have you solve as much diversity as possible. And of course, in a comment later, that's quite challenging, because if you create too much diversity of how people think about the world, you can't create a lot of entropy in the organization so how much diversity your organization can be stopped that's an important point. Second is balancing polarities, there will be always polarities in place there, there will be always ambiguity in place in how organization blends that so it's a different approach is not like forcing people to align is is is helping polarities different point of views to survive together. That's a complete different mindset as well. And instead of like manage only talent engagement in the culture of organization, and I will comment more is about maturity, how you keep maturity in the organization. So, what I call here is this kind of approach you, it's an approach that you force into the organization what I call intentional ambiguity is you create ambiguity because you know that this ambiguity is some of these polarities will be important for you in the future you just don't know when and how. So, moving forward to the next slide. So, all we are talking here is how we enlarge the framing capabilities of organizations to handle with unknown, you know, we handle with uncertainty with the think they don't know and the second thing is reduce the cost of learning, because if anytime you face a problem. When you're doing your strategy, when you're making your strategy, if you don't have capabilities to think differently, and think innovatively to solve this problem, you increase your cost of learning. All what we are seeing here is how we speed the cost of learning of the organization to enlarge in the frame capabilities. So, good example here, recently we're helping a big health insurance company. And as some of you know how it's interesting is all about like the policy issue management the claims the actor actor area, all the medical support to see if the things are happening or not or what is possible to cover or not. Underwriting so all these traditional things that is a paradigm that is paradigm of control. No I give what I can do in the control you and there's a culture if I don't trust you I mean everything you send I need to send to my team here so they can check that the things are working. And what we are seeing right now in the organization is in insurance companies is that that's not sustainable long term. There's a big problem here that is people will not behave the way you want they will try to find out ways to manipulate you to deceive you and to get the best service that they need. Not the best but the best amount of money to do what they need from the health insurance company. So what some companies did was they start like bringing some behavior scientists, people that are experts to engage clients not to. It's funny not to engage clients in the services but engage client is consume insurance services in a way that long term will be much more sustainable and less expensive. And also I mean to do that they saw that they need to bring people to take care of data privacy because they couldn't do that in any country that they operate they should. I mean, doing this to collect information from people they need to be careful about that but at the moment they do that they start like creating the ambiguity. So short term cash management on long term ROI, because if you want to change people to have a behavior to consume differently, your products and your insurance. What that means. And in fact to be long term you to be not affecting your bottom line right now. How do you survive that that create a lot of tension in the organization different ways of thinking. Oh, should I manage deals when I go to a client should they go there to an RFP and just get my best price and make sure that the client is paying something that can cover my claims in the future. So engage the client in a relationship that would be completely different is long term, and you'll be a generate benefits for both sides. So, the full model in the left side is restrictions and the left the right side is incentives how you send if people to behave different these are complete different words and when you create that in the organization like this health insurance company you create a lot of tension that need to be managed and all that they they need to do is how we keep those two things because one is not replacing the other, they just need to survive together. So moving forward, the challenge as well as when you think about diversity is how read our individuals in the organization to handle that and I did once like this. Quick exercise with a lot of people I will not do here, we don't have the time to do that here but basically I launch this for situations here. There are six situations actually the situation is, people need to relate better with each other and different six different people's ABCDF, they have their own point of view about how relationship happens. And if you look here, you have different levels of maturity. If you look to the sea for example, or the people can be useful when manipulating control generate benefits for me. So what suggests a really low level of maturity, but when you look to the sea that says I'm responsible for my choice relationships to have with others, people and then the interdependence we have with everyone around us I hope I can help them to develop the few, the full potential if you're so much more maturity here then in the letter E. But what interesting and what science has shown us that this is not easy. There is a first there is a levels of maturity. Let's say someone that is in the first stage here. That was a letter E. They don't get immediately if training or develop in the letter C, they pass through for levels they pass through for levels of maturity until they get to the level C. So each level brings more maturity to the table and make them more effective to work together with people and bring outputs to the organization. And I know it's funny because a researcher from the Harvard University, her name is Susanic Grutter. She did this research with more than 20,000 executives in different organizations and she found out that actually, there are a lot of people in lower levels of maturity. If you look like one E here 11.3% of people were here 29.7% in the third level. So a long way to the most mature, mature level that is the C. So it takes time to gather. So, but organization need to move forward if they want to people with diverse backgrounds to work together. If they don't do that, I mean, they will just create a lot of complexity to those people manage the diversity in the organization, and we will struggle. So that's much more than inclusion. I mean, you need to make inclusion happens, but you need to create the level of emotional maturity in people to make them work together. So I will skip this slide here that shows a little bit of this challenge of organizations should move forward from horizon one horizon three and that when you think about leadership structure and performance we are talking about different ways to look to the organization. But my final point and we can go to some of the questions is what should organizations do about that so and I have few suggestions based on your experience. The first one is develop intentionally diversity. What I mean is, which are the areas, instead of like just say I need diversity and bring people to the organization the point is, which are the areas that I need people thinking differently. It's like bringing more behavioral scientists and bring more economies bring anthropologists bring people from technology, bringing artists to help you with like different by experience. So, which are the areas that I need intentionally to bring to my organization, but don't get fooled that would bring ambiguity that you bring complexity and polarity organization. One point that I would suggest is expand do not narrow cultural capabilities should be something different. So all the investments you need to do in your teams, you know existing teams is how they will accept the different and how they will hire, engage and keep the different work in the organization, because the cultural fit that that would make sense for the horizon one and two, but that create a lot of problems to organization that when the different was about I mean, everybody knows that when the different to your organization what happened. I mean those people were expelled it because they didn't have the cultural fit I mean that's an excuse that is not more acceptable I mean you need to be able to solve the different. And that means that all going is not organization have this capability mature and they need to develop that. The third point is develop and measure maturity of individuals teams and organizations, instead of only be concerned with with employee engagement and if people are happy, and if they're seeing career you need to make sure that they're getting more mature, mainly in the relationships with others. So few organizations measure that, and they should be more concerned because they put here a really important point to be careful that this sometimes when you're transforming, you create more conflict. Sometimes the conflict is assigned is a signal that you're moving to the right direction, of course you need to be careful that extreme conflict can create, as I said, entropy and can make you not move forward. So, but the point here is sometimes the employee engagement tools or what section surveys, they just create the misperception that you need to solve those problems. And actually those problems don't need to be so they just need to be. People need to learn how to live with that. And that's something that you should be aware and be careful. And the big but here at the end, and the final point that I would suggest that this do not create more complexity. I mean, as I said, you bring my diversity, you create more complex in the organization. But what are you saying, Claudia, I mean, seems paradoxical. The point is, I mean, you should choose every time you bring more complexity, the informal complexity of the people in your organization, you should do something to simplify what is formal. And today you have a lot of technologies that are helping you to make more effective things that create a lot of friction in the organization and helps nothing like everything that's formal processes, simple decisions that you need to make, make the governance work. If you could automate that as as as as quicker as possible, it's better to leave the amount of capability to handle with complexity free to the formal side. So everything that should be as political in some organizations should be formalized and simplify the lives of a lot of people that we will spend more time in the future, talk to each other, try to convince each other, try to work together and bring new things to the table and try to the organization leave in a more, I would say, Horizon one, sorry, Horizon three kind of word. So that is my message today, of course, I will respond some questions if you have some. I will look here. I hope you have enjoyed. That's my message to most of you. Okay, so now we are going to start our Q&A portion of the presentation just as a quick reminder if you do have any questions for Claudio, please do type them into the questions pane of your control panel, which is located down at the very bottom of your control and it looks like our first question is, can you explain more on how strategic thinking is a talent and what would you or what would we specifically look for. Could you repeat the beginning of the question is strategic thinking is a talent. Explain more on how strategic thinking is a talent. What would we specifically be looking for. Good question. So I think I mean, the premise is, if you move from strategic thinking to strategic making is not that you're ignoring thinking and focusing the making know it's just that you're using the thinking to realize things to take decisions more on the future as the things unfold as the thing is are forming. So that's not a talent that can be training, you know, everybody should be training about like how to handle with a certain future. When you see all those new methodologies like design thinking and agile development, the premise, the premises we don't know exactly what is going to work in the end. And we move forward and we strategically connect with each other to make decisions as we go. And what that means is you still need to look to the market with what the competitors are doing what the science is saying about that what the economies are doing you need to use all that your strategic thinking pick up capabilities. But the difference here is is not to design something that you don't know will succeed. It should give response to what you're designed right now that you need to go back to the market to your clients and tested. That's a different way to think about that. So what I say usually is, if you're a person is strategy, you should have big intentions, but don't be concerned to have a really big plans have just a beginning of a plan that could put you moving and make sure that people are discussing and bring the questions that need to be decided and need to be tested in the market to move forward. So and have so many tools that are available today that can allow you to do that. So all those concepts of minimal viable product, you know, and as I said, I just thinking design thinking all those things can train people and form the talent on people that will deliver on those projects. That's another shift that I need comment here but when you think about strategy making. There is a distribution of the strategy function from an area that used to be the traditional organizations to the field you equip people to make decisions there, giving them information giving access to other people. Given the support that they need to move forward with decision they need to make so that's terrible. Maybe there are some people that have more skills to do that than others. What I think is more difficult is the mindset because when you try to implement that you need to have people much more flexible to handle the leadership to other people. And I think that that are not formal leaders in organization. Usually, the leadership in this space is more fluid. You give the leadership to whoever whoever has the best capability to lead the team at this moment to a specific problem and so on so far. So, it changed the whole dynamic of how you manage organizations. Okay, let's go to the second question seems there is another one. Thank you. How would you define ambiguity. It is a. Is it the gap that you have from taking the organization from point a to point B. No, yes. No, I don't think so I think ambiguity means that you're leading with things that cannot. You cannot solve. Let's say, I mean if you organization is leading with short term and long term, for example, sometimes you cannot solve this problem or you take an action that will solve your short term problems or you take an action that will prepare you for the future. But this ambiguity is deceased there and what happened is, when you have an ambiguity sometimes you need to favor one side against the another. I can give an example if reorganization and you know that you need to take some actions for the long term. And I'm just giving one example. But you know, if you do that you put your company in a really difficult cash position, you should maybe tend to take the short term decision. So then be great is there, you know, and people will complain that you're not taking the future and that will diminish your capabilities to play in the future. And there's a point here that you need to make a decision that is if I do that I can put in risk the survival of the organization the shopper. That's a simple example that I you have seen a lot of organization leave there, but there's so many of those polarities that you cannot solve. They're saying oh it's one and another. No, you need to live with two of them, you need to in some organizations live with competencies capabilities that are the opposite of each other. And you need as a leader or as an organization to be able to manage to sometimes give more force to one of them and less force to other of them. So another example is like this capability. I mean you have people that are really good in designing operating and you have really good, good people in innovating I mean, sometimes you need to balance to one. And the others will complain also. That's what I mean about and be good is when you have those values of capabilities competencies that are really polarities that they cannot be solved and you need to live with Dan. In the organization and that creates a big problem for those that advocate that culture is a set of values and behaviors that everybody should have in the organization. That's a lie. I mean if you want to survive in the future, you need to have these conflicts alive in organizations. You just the point is, instead of making those conflicts negative, you need to have the maturity to make them thrive in your organization because in the future, maybe you need one, and instead of another and that can revert in the next year or so. So that's challenging, but that's what we are seeing organizations how we have those people conflicting respectfully and make decisions together and understand that sometimes one of them will be more important than the other in order to make the organization flexible enough to create and to thrive in this new uncertain and stable market that we are leaving right now. Great. Thank you, Claudio. Our next question that the asker would like to thank you for an interesting presentation. And their question is, I am trying to apply this to nonprofit sector organizations and strategic planning. There is a lot of cultural diversity in my clients organization, but staff very ingrained in nonprofit sector. Salaries in the sector tend to be below the for profit sector. How do we encourage diversity as you referred to with nonprofit sector strategy implementation that is level two and level three. Yeah, I think it's funny. NGOs are all the time try to handle with problems that are difficult to solve. It's funny when you see Melinda Gates Foundation that they have invested billions and billions of dollars in Africa. And most recently, like, few years ago, Melinda came to Melinda Gates came to see that, unfortunately, a lot of investments they did in the past, they just didn't work. They had intention they believe that investing this way would solve problems in education. And this is this is control, you know, but it didn't solve why because all those problems were like being tried being tried to so for the first time so you cannot just go to a solution. And they are now much more flexible how they approach those problems, instead of just go there investing a problem with a specific solution. They are trying small, a lot of these more solutions because they know that one of them will work and they can scale that. And sometimes they will try to scary not work because what works let's say in Mozambique is not going to be the same in Kenya because of cultural differences. But what I'm saying here is that NGOs are trying to solve a lot of them are trying to prove to solve complex problems in the world, and they are maybe the ones that most require the most require the diversity of thinking, because they constantly need to rethink their thinking what they're doing is working if it's not what would be the next option. And unfortunately, what the areas that they play there's not a lot of people playing so there's not a lot of options. So they need to constantly innovate and find and pursue different approach to solve their problems, if you can understand I mean, if you look like the amount of things. And of course, thinking about NGOs of those organizations that are trying to solve problems that the form of marketplace do not have interest to go. So if you think about this way, you need to be really innovative to create efficient ways to solve the problems you're facing as a NGO so I really believe that's completely applicable to them. Okay, and our next question is. So in the bottom, you were saying that organizations need to change from and soft to Mittsburg for designing strategy. Yes, and what I'm saying is organizations should design the strategies as they go, you know they should create more like a scientific approach, you know is, I have this idea, I had this intention this is what the organization could go move forward. Let's encapsulate that put a group of people diverse group of people try this in the market. Check it it's working out check the feedback from the market and is slowly scale this strategy as you move forward, instead of as you use to do in the past that is here huge discussion about strategy we define completely what's the future of the organization. We create a really comprehensive plan how to execute on it. I'm just saying that that's impossible today because it's funny because we see that all the time organizations called big consulting companies they do like those three a plan. Let's say and that creates like the, the, the, the sub products of implement a system, a software, people start implementing those softwares and systems one year from the beginning. Everybody know it's not going to solve anything. And at the end, nobody has the political power to raise the hand and say, you know, we are just investing here we just could should get the sunk cost and invest something else. I'm trying to say is avoid that I mean what I'm trying to say is just have a good intention what you want to do with your organization and put people smart people to work together. Thinking strategically how to solve the problem but as they go instead of like having the full plan in place. Grace thank you Claudio our next question is, in your experience which horizon are most large companies in. Yeah, what I'd say is, and that creates a lot of ambiguity as well but they are playing all the three horizons, we still, all organizations still need horizon one incremental improvement. Everybody needs to incrementally improve their efficiency and use ideas solutions. The same horizon to I mean, bigger corporation large corporation are still acquiring different companies different sectors investing areas, and they need to do that to survive if you look like to the disruptors. Some of them are not only working one sector there mood sector you know if you think, for example, Amazon Amazon is a marketplace is is the distribute of their own products is now having their own stories so he's is the supplier he's the, the retail place you know is everything together so horizon to two will always happen in organizations, but is is a little easier than horizon three, but organizations and we can see I mean, all those examples that organizations took from the last year that they don't want to be the next Kodak, the next blockbuster because other can disrupt them. So they are trying to innovate by themselves they are going to horizon three in that creates a lot of tension, I can give one example, I mean, maybe a lot of you follow what happening with GG last year G was for the first time after like many years out of the the Dow Jones index. It was excluded from the Dow Jones index. And all of you have following the media, what happened with G but basically gene to 012 to 11 said, I will be digital first digital first is I need to innovate and completely change the way we operate as an organization for to survive in the future. And they tried to do that but they just ignore it they, if you think this way, but horizon two and one. That is, there was still a profitable organization behind them that they need to take care of. And what that means, you can play in all organizations, large organizations are trying to play in the horizon three, but there's still like people working there that want to be excited to go every day to the work and I believe that they are doing a great job. And seems that like a lot of reports say that in GE people were saying that the golden ducks were always like taking care of the innovation in the future. And what they were doing we're not more important for the organization they create like there was the ambiguity as I said but they were not able to make this and be good live together and say hey, you're that taking care of the horizon to a horizon one businesses that we have today are as important as the investments we're doing to become the digital. First in the future. And that create a lot of unnecessary risk and people didn't keep like the improvements and the horizon to a live in GE what we do to profitability and our other things. And they were not successful they went too big to the horizon three and much more like a big plan, instead of a emerging process that they would bring new solutions is slowly. To the market, proving them and skating them and that created a really big problem to them that they are trying to escape from right now, but I would say that all big companies they are in the three horizons at the same time they need to be careful. And that creates a lot of ambiguity and diverse ways to face the problems in organizations and leaders of those organizations need to be able to keep off them leaving together. Great, thank you Claudio. And just as a reminder there is still time if you do have any questions for Claudio please do type them into the questions pane that is located at the bottom of your control panel. And our next question is, what is your experience with flat organization efficiency. Flat organizations, what's the last word. Efficiency. Oh, yes. So, yeah, I mean, in the last 10 years, I've seen a lot of organizations try to venture themselves in more innovative structures like holocracy and other things that we have some clients in this field. And one thing is there is a trend and the trend is organizations become more and more flat as the they automate more services they reduce constraint and the friction in the process so as automation move forward. We will have more organization more flat. And that will, it's a trend, but there are organizations that try to move that quickly going to a flat structure quickly. And I would say that my experience say that that's quite difficult, because we are talking about that slide that I showed that people take a long time to get the maturity to operating this level of environment. And sometimes they don't have just, they just don't have the maturity to play there. If it's a small team, like there's a really interesting case in Brazil of a company that was a successful book in US. The name of the book is Mavericks. I forgot the name of the company. And they were quite successful in creating a flat organizations where everybody was released before the decision was made. I love the company we are talking about 300 people, you know, and they, they were smart enough that they had a cap, the organization could not grow bigger than a specific size and if they saw the possibility to grow bigger than this specific size, they would split the organization. So they could keep like a lower amount of people in this flat organization that could operate, but the point is they need to have a really high level of maturity. You know, you can have flat organizations, but as organization become more flat right now you need to invest in the maturity of your workforce. You need to have investing make those people work together and make the best decision that sometimes is better for some people because they will have more compelling exciting work than the others. And the other moment to be the difference. I mean, there's so many behaviors that people need to comply and to get the maturity, it just takes time. People are not digital people are not logic, they take time to develop. So I believe in flat organizations just believe it takes time to develop the maturity necessary to make them work. Perfect. Thank you so much, Claudia. And our next question is, according to you, what is the most critical skill set organizations should look for today. Yeah, that's interesting. It's pretty much like there was a phrase that I said that that is, I can come back there, because it's what I really believe the companies should do is simplify the formal ending strength, the informal is this last phrase here. What I'm saying here at the end is that organizations should quickly automate everything that is formal that it's easy to automate I mean you have today robot process of automation that could speed your process to even automate legal or there is that I'm more formal you know what to do. And when I say strengthening formal is strength the capability of people living with what is the most human things we have on us that is strength the capabilities of people to to to conflict with each other, the capabilities of people to convince each other is some about human capabilities is about soft skills. I think that's the main thing that organizations should invest right now for the future. Of course they cannot forget all the technical skills many those that are really important for the future of the organization. And that is all these artificial intelligence and data science all the things need to come together, but they don't work if those people that are joining are not capable to have productive conversations and make tough decisions together. So that's for me is the key skills, a key skill that we make organization learn fast faster because learning fast faster. It's not like Peter St said in the past organization that we bring a lot of knowledge for the organization is much more about how we go to the market together and know what what we work for our clients and not. And to do that we need to abandon a lot of. Childish childish behaviors, you know, and invest more in how to gain maturity and how we can work better together to make the best decisions for our company for our clients. I think that's it. Yeah. Great. Thank you. And our final question for you today is, what is a good example of a flat organization. Yes, it's a good, it's a good question. I mean, I can send the name to the participants later of this company in Brazil that have a real flat organization or flat operation. I can tell you organization that are moving this direction. I cannot tell a lot if you were talking about large or midsize organization I know. I don't know any of them that's completely flat I can tell some of them that have more flat environments than others. If you look like most of those digital companies that are becoming unicorn right now, they are exactly this moment that they were much flatter. And now they are trying to live with this flat environment in a much bigger corporation they are not succeeding, but they are examples of doing this. There's always the example of Zappos at Amazon's but there's a lot of criticism about that. What I can tell you is that there are big organizations that have more flat than others in the same field. But if you ask me about a completely flat organization, large organizations, I haven't seen yet. I haven't seen yet. Great. Thank you Claudio and thank you so much for such an interesting presentation today. That is all the questions we have so I'll turn things over to you to wrap things up for us. No, I just want to say thank you. I mean you have my contact information here so any personal contact or any extension of this conversation if you want to have more than glad to connect. So I'm based in New York I'm always traveling but I find some time to spend stay here in the city. So if you some of you are traveling here or if you live here. Don't hesitate to connect with me maybe you can have a coffee and discuss more of the things. Those things excite me I mean I'm not in this job because I just got here I like what I do. So everything that could increase my comprehension of what's going on and how we can react to them would be really helpful so more than glad to connect with you. Thank you so much a bright line for this opportunity and I hope all of you have a great week.