 Hello everyone, and welcome to this workshop. So for those who do not know me, I'm Ricardo Vargas. I am the executive director of the Brightline Initiative. Brightline is a project management institute initiative created in 2017. And the aim of Brightline is to help understanding and get action on how we can bridge the gap between ideas and reality, between what is on paper and the results. And over these three years, so we did a lot of research studies trying to understand which are the critical steps that companies and organizations are doing or not doing to get things done. The project management institute envisioned that because PMI works for about 50 years on the project management community with around three million members in more than 190 countries. And PMI realized that there is a lack of understanding on, I would say, non-prediction level on what it takes to get things into reality. And I'm very excited because when we started Richard Straub and I started talking about doing something, we said, okay, who we should invite to do that? And we have an absolutely impossible to be better panel and group of experts to share their knowledge with us today. So I really want to thank Tony O'Driscoll that decided to volunteer to take a lead. So Tony from Duke University, he is a research partner of Brightline and he is working mainly on one key component of our research last year that is called the people manifesto. So on that bridge, there is a very big missing component that is the human side. And today we will talk about this human-centric transformation. So how we can bring people and how we can relate people and employee transformation with organizational transformation. So I really want to thank all Rick, Caroline, Martin, Rita and Michael for being here. So I'm very excited. And also we have two very special guests that are coming for the first time. So we have two PMI board members here Luan Picard and Kathy Latona that are following. And if Brightline exists, it's exactly because we got the support and the resources to do that. So I'm very happy. And so Luan, I want just you to say a couple of words then we can kick off. Sure. First of all, I'm just delighted to be here representing the PMI board of directors along with my fellow board member, Kathy Latona. But for me, particularly for two reasons. One is a board member, but I'm also an academician. I'm a professor and chair of our project management department at the University of Alaska Anchorage. So I have a long way in getting here yesterday. I'm not sure quite what time it is, but I'm humbled to be able to sit here and learn from you as well today as a fellow academician and understanding both as a researcher and an instructor and how we can help our students be more effective at this challenge of transformation. But I did want to say to your point, as much as probably I would have said about PMI in this case, but I do think it's really interesting how I've seen a lot of research, a lot of people talking about how the rate of transformation and change is happening so, so, so quickly that we as people aren't really able to keep up with it. And so I think having an understanding of how we can position ourselves and our organizations to be able to adapt to change as people as quickly as change is happening around us will be critical. So I'm very interested in hearing from today. So thank you again for being here. We're so excited to hear from you and thanks to all the participants and delighted to have you here today. Thank you so much. Appreciate it, Leigh Ann. All right, so my name is Tony O'Driscoll and we're here to talk about People Center Transformation. The fundamental premise here is that organizations don't change unless they're people do. And so with all the research that we've been looking at, there's a lot about the technical side of transformation and the process and the structure and the software, et cetera, et cetera and how we go about implementing change. And it's revealing that perhaps we've ignored the emotional side of change and the fact that people must change if organizations must change. So the two questions we're gonna be exploring a little bit today is should organization transformation efforts concentrate less on the tangible levers of structure, governance and process? We talk a lot about that. And more on the emotional needs of people. And secondly, can we better balance the tangible and emotional sides of transformation to reduce failure rates, because I'll give you some data on failure rates, and increase employee engagement. So that's what we're gonna try to do over the next three hours. Three hours sounds like a long time. It's my goal and our goal on the panel to ensure that that goes by in a flash and you say, wow, that was really quick. And so this is kind of how it's going to go. There's four key sessions. The first is we're going to hear from the panel to develop some shared perspective on their own research, what they've been looking at. But the catch question is, and so what does this mean for people-centered transformation? The second piece then is we're going to take our collective people-centered transformation pulse. So we've developed a survey and we're gonna go through that and ask each of you to score your own organizations on a 10-point scale for people-centered transformation. We will then map that up on the wall to get a sense of where the group is collectively and which elements might require further investigation. After that, we'll then break into small groups where we'll focus on the element we're most interested in. I'll provide you with a little bit more research and we'll ask you to identify what we think we have to do more, better or differently to move that element forward. And secondly, for those of you who are perhaps a little further along the journey, what are the next practices that we might want to take away so we can start applying tomorrow to start nudging the culture towards one that embraces this change rather than resistance? So that's the plan. And then finally, we'll come full circle to our panel who will give us some final reflections based on the work that we've done today. Now, I'm an ENFP in the Myers Break, so this is a perfectly fine agenda for me. For those of you who are not that way persuaded, here you go. All right, and the most important too are breaks. We have agreed that we're gonna be as informal as possible with this, so there will be break in about an hour and 10 minutes or so after we've talked to the panel. Then we're gonna do a little bit of a workshop element and then we'll have another break so that we can just stand up, clear our heads and come back. We know that we just need to stretch a little bit through a three hour period. That make sense? Questions? We're glad to have you here. Okay, so developing a shared perspective on PCT, we could not be more excited because, look, we've even organized it from left to right here. We have Michael Jacobides from London Business School and Michael over the last couple of years at least has been delving deeply into ecosystems. So his challenge in eight minutes or less, which anytime you say anything to Michael, eight minutes or less is a challenge, is to share his wisdom about ecosystems and then bridge it to what it might mean for people's center transformation. Then we'll hear from Rita. Obviously Rita is well known for all of her work in strategy, but most recently she's been thinking about seeing around corners and understanding inflection points and so she's getting to share some of her thoughts on that and then again try and tie that back to what might the implications be for people's center transformation. Then we have Martin Reeves who chairs the Henderson Institute. Martin's going to talk a little bit about some of the traps, some of the change traps that we get into organizationally as well as individually and some ways we might get out of it. And then we have Caroline. Caroline, when I was first talking to her, said, oh, this is great. I just happened to interview over 100 chief digital and chief executive officers about transformation. So we're gonna take a look at the leadership side and what leadership thinks about it. And then last, but certainly not least to my left here is Rick Goins. Rick is chairman Emeritus from Tupperware, joined that company I think in 1992 and I think is a shining example of the kind of leader we all aspire to become. And so he's gonna share some of his thoughts about hanging out with the Pope and other things like that. Okay, so first and foremost then, Michael, you're going to talk I think about ecosystems with regards to people-centered transformation. And would you like me to cue the video first? And then started, I probably have a loud and unvoiced. Do you need that? No, they're taping it. Oh, they're taping it again, you need it. I'm sorry, you're gonna have voices louder than you want. Let's start at the timer if you have one so that I know how many minutes you have. That'd be great. So before we start thinking about ecosystems, I guess that the question that we have since we're thinking about transformation is why do we transform and what do we have to adjust to? And the reason that I started getting interested in ecosystems is that I've been looking for a long time at how sectors adjust, at how business models evolve, and as such what are the new challenges that organizations have. And as I was doing it, this ecosystem stuff sort of kept popping up. Now it started popping up and most people who use it, use it as a bit of a poetry. It's something that is evocative that makes me think about the connection between others. But I thought there was a little bit more than that. And the more that I looked at sectors, the more you realize that there are very deliberately structured groups of firms that try to deliver value together. People started noticing that when we had the transformation in who makes money in the world. And if you look at the evolution of the top five firms in terms of market cap rather than having the usual suspects which happens up until literally 2016, you then started having the big five, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and what they are doing really is not just offering technology. What they are doing is that they are using technology as the thin edge of the wedge that allows them to use all kinds of different services. And they want to create something that envelops the lives that they have, leveraging others not just themselves and creating these dense webs of relationships that they're using strategically. Now that means that you start thinking about how you're going to both create and capture value by creating and structuring an ecosystem. And that leads us a couple of different challenges. The first thing is that you see that people are trying to think about how they will be able to collaborate with others in order to create something that gives simplicity to the customer. And the second is brokering all these complex relationships that make that happen. And I thought that we'd have this brief video that I'd like to show you that comes from a Chinese firm which is Tencent that created WeChat. WeChat is, think about Facebook means Amazon and everything is around you. And that is a little bit of a precursor of what we may start seeing even more here. Firms like Uber start aspiring to that. Take a look at what WeChat has done for the Chinese customers in Europe. Just for me, a couple of different things. One thing that I discussed yesterday that published a blog and HBR original title was the Ying and the Yang of ecosystems. It had to be pedestrianized. That was too poetic for HBR. And I think that the point here is that ecosystems have a Ying and a Yang. The Ying is, or rather the Yang is the bright side and it is customer simplicity. It is something that is really effortless for the customer. And if you think about many of the products that we have, if you think about the ecosystems that we get, whether they are around mobility, whether they are around services, they require to have real ease quite often that integrates a number of services and gives them to the customer. But behind that is the Ying. It is the complex web of relationships that need to be structured. Because here we may see WeChat, but WeChat arranged with KPN, the Dutch telco operator, to provide the SIMs that are shipped to China that are given to the Chinese customers that put them on the phone that also arrange the relationships that get discounts for the businesses so that you don't have the Chinese tour operator that gets a bit of kickback, but it's all legit and we call it business development. So there are lots of things that need to happen and there are different roles. Not only do we have the orchestrators, the ones that we glorify, the big tech firms, but we also have the partners. We have, in addition to having the partners, we have the participants. And this is the challenge that we have. The challenge is not that we all need to become orchestrators. The challenge is that we are living in a world of ecosystems and we need to deliver different parts of value add, which may be different when we're an orchestrator, when we're a partner or when we are simply a participant because simply leaving by will not allow us to be as profitable. What does that mean for us? Well, it means that we need to find ways of embedding ourselves in these ecosystems or building these ecosystems. What does that mean? It means that we have to develop new capabilities. How do we do that? Well, part of it might be that we try to do that centrally. But a number of these things, a number of these ways of adding value will come from the people in the front line. And this is what the big challenge is. Yesterday, I spent the day with Zhang Ruimin, the CEO of Hire. Now, Zhang is restructuring his whole organization, Hire, in using the new version of Rent and High, which he is based in on ecosystem micro-enterprise communities. What does he do? Well, he starts measuring people on the ecosystem revenue that they give because he's very concerned about the commoditization of business. And what he's doing is he's creating a very decentralized structure whereby people need to take entrepreneurial initiative to broker relationships with those outside the organization and then to ensure that that gets even outside funding in order to get more funding inside. Now, this is one bet and it's the decentralization bet. There's another bet if you look at companies in China again like Huawei or a little less so like Xiaomi that are creating their own ecosystems that are much more heavily centralized. But whether they are centralized and decentralized and this is an open debate that I think will continue going on, we're probably going to come to an understanding that depending on the type of ecosystem you want, you will have to choose your organizational structure. You also need to change the mentality of the employees because if you agree that this is the way the world is moving, well, that probably means that you need to change how people view the world. What are the fundamental transformations that we need to do? The first thing that we need to do is we need to understand, we are employees, need to understand that the traditional definition of the sector is dead. The work that underlie and underpin the ecosystem work is the work on industry transformation. And what ecosystems are doing is that with the support of digitization and the changes in regulation, they are allowing us to reshuffle stuff and give them in a new way that adds value to the customer. So if you draw psychological certainty from a very fixed way in which you operate, forget it. Financial services used to be an example of what would absolutely not change because of regulation. Now the Financial Contact Authority has something called a regulatory sandbox which means that we're gonna try everything and we're gonna see how we can innovate. So we need to change people's perceptions that tend to be very wedded to the traditional ways in which they do business. They need to change and not think about the customer taking them for granted and they also need to be much more extrovert because rather than pleasing internal stakeholders, you have to start connecting them with external stakeholders. And this, I think, is the beginning of the transformation journey that a number of organizations are on, but I see the rest of my panel in order to take us through that. Thank you. Well done, Michael. I think that's the first time you've landed in time. Well done. Okay, so next, you took the challenge and you met it. Thank you so much, Michael. Yes, if that's okay because they're taping it, Rita. So Rita, literally just arrived. Hi. I did, for London. She's gonna pick up from Michael's conversation because I know a big part of what you talk about is competitive arenas and as we move into ecosystems, but the floor is yours. Thank you so much. Well, it's a real delight to be here. I always look forward to the Drucker Forum. And I thought I would start with a couple of stories from my book and the book is about strategic inflection points. And when I talk about a strategic inflection point, what I mean is it's something that changes, often in the environment, that causes the assumptions you make about what's true to shift. And the book really talks about three pieces of this equation in terms of transformation. The first is how do you see an inflection point? The second is how do you decide what to do about it? And the third is how do you bring the organization with you, which is really the people part. So I'd like to talk about that in the context of the recent transformation at Microsoft. Now the first piece of what I think Satya Nadella is doing, which is fantastic is he's recognized that when we look at the data we have to work with, there's always data that lags the phenomenon. And unfortunately, most of what we have to work with that we use in business school cases and that we report out on financial statements is lagging information. It's great information, but you can't do anything about it because it's already happened. Then we have current data that tells us kind of where we are. And you might think of things like net promoter scores as your current data, employee engagement might be kind of where you are. And the hardest thing to get your head around are leading indicators of what is to come. And I think one of the wonderful things Nadella did was he really said to the organization which was very focused on profits and very successful profits and market share and that kind of thing. And he said, I really want everyone here at Microsoft thinking about leading indicators. And what's a leading indicator for our business? It's usage as we move to a cloud subscription-based model as we start to take our business to the cloud. I want you to really focus on leading indicators. And that means I want you focused on customer usage and before customers willingly use our products. I mean, you have to think about Microsoft. This is a company that was kind of used to having customers as hostages rather than as actual customers. He said, before you can use our products, you have to love them. Customer love. Can you imagine Microsoft? So I experienced this myself. I flew to Bellevue to speak at a senior leadership meeting at Microsoft and I walk in the hotel room, arrived there, opened the door and in the ballroom at the back of the room in letters as tall as I am is the word empathy. And I thought to myself, oh no, I am in the wrong place. This can't possibly be Microsoft. And yet what they're really trying to focus on are the people and the empathic situations that are required for customers to willingly use their products, work together, stop being so internally competitive and really take advantage of the talent that's truly in that organization. So I'd like to tell a short story about how this empathy actually flows into the way that Nadella and his team are looking at their people and the transformation they're trying to evoke. So here's an early warning of things that are going to be important, which is how do robots and machines and people communicate, right? And we know that there are gonna be big changes in the world on how robots, machines, people communicate. And one of those big changes is going to be text. And another one is gonna be artificial intelligence. So how do we learn about how that future intelligence is going to work out? So one of the things Microsoft's doing, which I think is a good best practice, is they're taking out early options, which are small investments we make today to buy ourselves the right to learn something in the future. And one of the small investments they decided to make was their research group created this chat bot named Tay. And Tay was sort of a female persona, kind of 20-ish would be her persona. And their whole research agenda was to learn about how human beings would interact with this artificially intelligent-enabled chat bot named Tay. And then they released Tay, poor little chat bot, they released Tay into the world on Twitter. And so you could talk to Tay on Twitter and she would respond. And the theory that Microsoft people had when they released Tay into the world was human beings would talk to her and she'd learn and they'd educate her about how the world was and she'd respond and they would be able to learn a lot about how machines and artificial intelligence would interact. Doesn't that sound like a great theory? Well, the problem is humanity, especially humanity on Twitter, is not a great, wholesome, wonderful place. So within about 48 hours after Tay gets into the world, every troll, every negative, every racist, bigot, you name it, the horrible dark side of humanity is throwing sort of text at this chat bot. And so what's she learning? She's learning to do the same. And so within about 48 hours, this rope of this little chat bot is spewing out the worst racist homophobic, you just name it, it's awful what she was put up to. Anyway, so that was a horrific embarrassment for Microsoft. I mean, it made all the papers, it was really a bad news. But think about it, nobody died, nobody even really got hurt. I mean, it was embarrassing and it showed off the worst of Twitter, which is not Microsoft's problem, but that's a humanity problem. And so what did Nadella do? So you got something that is actually a really super public and embarrassing failure. How do you deal with the people side of this? Because if you do it wrong, you're gonna discourage people from ever trying anything again. So what did he do? He wrote the head of the research team a note. And it said, you know, this one didn't work out the way we had all hoped, but I think you're headed in the right direction. Let's try something different with this artificial intelligence bot. Let's learn our lessons from this experience. Don't be discouraged, I've got your back. Very human, right? And I think that's part of what we need to be so sensitive to in these transformations. You're not gonna get everything right. People will disappoint you. You know, humanity is not so kind. So as you're navigating your way through these inflection points, I really think it's important to remember, you have to be willing to bring the people with you. And that sometimes is going to involve, you know, embarrassment, which is not so bad. I mean, Microsoft did not go bankrupt. Yeah, it was embarrassing that, but that's about the worst that happened. So you have to really be sensitive, I think, to the human side of how we're going to navigate through these inflection points. So I'll leave it there and we'll pick up the conversation as we go. Thanks, Rita. Thank you so much. Okay, so now Martin has spent a lot of time looking at change and organizations, and he's gonna share a little bit, I think, both from the organization side and the human side on some change traps. And there's your... Thank you. Keep me honest on time. Will do. So transformation doesn't really work that well, but it is an important problem. Our analysis suggests that about 30% of companies at any time are involved in a major change effort. And in about 75% of cases, they fail to meet their objectives. 75%, and the difference in net present value between those that meet and don't meet their objectives is about 10 percentage points of shelf return for a remarkably long period of time. The shadow of bad transformation lasts for about 10 years. So that's roughly the enterprise value of the company. So we really need a better way of approaching transformation, especially as change in the world accelerates. So that's a very big problem, but I wanna touch on a few ideas today, three ideas in fact, that are very plausible that I've seen many times in practice that are actually potentially fatal to any transformation effort. So those ideas are that change is change is change. There's one type of change, one type of change management. Another one is that change can be planned. And another one is that fundamentally change is something mandated that happens to people. So taking the first one, so taking an analogy of hill climbing, if we think about a valley, a nasty place to be and a peak, a nice place to be and we think of a change management as a journey up this mountain. Most of the time, typically we'll appoint a program office, we'll have a Gantt chart, we'll have a regular steering committee readouts and so on, we'll have a planned itinerary approach to change. In other words, we know the means of change and we know the starting point, we know the end point and we know the milestones. And I think this is a perfectly legitimate approach to change for relatively planable foreseeable processes. For instance, an 8% cost reduction is not that hard to envisage. But if on the other hand, we are like Starbucks trying to improve our customer loyalty program and we don't know exactly how to do that. We know the destination, we know what improved customer loyalty economics looks like but we don't know exactly how to get there. It's a bit more like a river crossing where we're gonna have to feel for the stepping stones along the way and perhaps deviate from a straight line. In other words, it needs to be an adaptive process. It's a different type of change requiring a different type of change management, less of a Gantt chart, more of like a process that Rita was hinting at with experimentation and risk and failure involved. If to take a very different example, we're like Google trying to figure out how to create a business which creates a commercial viable proposition around helium, balloon, suspended, Wi-Fi, then we don't know where we're starting. We don't know where we're going. We don't even know where there is a destination in which case actually wandering around randomly and creating a better map is not a bad strategy. Again, a very different approach to change when relying more on ingenuity and freedom than a rigid Gantt chart. So you get the idea that, I think we shouldn't restrict ourselves to one flavor of planned change, the planned itinerary. Second idea is, second lethal, potentially lethal idea is the idea that change can be planned. In fact, typically we, company planning transformation has some misfit with the environment and it creates a plan to address that misfit by planning to be in a new state, a new state of better fit with the environment. And presumably when circumstances shift again, they may move from A to B to C to another planned state. Well, turns out that major large-scale changes is a fairly emergent process. It rarely in my experience goes according to plan. And also of course, given that there'll need to be a next transformation and a next transformation, why not think about creating not a new planned state, but a new resilient state? In other words, transforming towards something which is evolvable and doesn't need to continue to have risky step changes. So to summarize some work that we've been doing with Princeton University on the biology of change, it turns out that human and natural systems which are resilient and evolvable have six characteristics, which are almost the opposite of the characteristics of a typical transformation. So they have redundancy. In other words, they don't manage to 100% efficiency because you plan some redundancy for unforeseen circumstances. They have diversity. So instead of having one standardized approach to things, they actually allow for a diversity of approaches to cope with unforeseen circumstances. They have modularity. They don't create the perfectly efficient integrated design. They actually have recombinable modules so that through recombination, much as in sexual genetic reassortment in biology, you can actually have a low risk way of creating new variants and evolving the model. They have adaptation mechanisms. In other words, you don't go from rigid state A to rigid state B, but you actually build processes so that you can evolve. They're prudent. In other words, they plan not only for the optimal state, the optimal circumstances, the desired circumstances, but they test for resilience in less favorable circumstances. And lastly, typically, companies which are transforming lock inwards, the object of transformation is pretty much the inside of the company. But as Michael was hinting, with ecosystems, we need to think about what lies beyond the company. And in a world of increasing social and ecological externalities, we need to think about what are called social and ecological embeddedness because in the long run, it's that misfit with society that will actually create the next transformation needs. So you may as well figure that into the current transformation. The third potentially lethal idea is that change happens to people. People are merely the recipients of the change plan. And of course, this is not a very productive way of looking at things because people can resist change. People have habits and they have inertia. And also for non-mechanical change, change that requires, for instance, innovation, we need to engage people's ingenuity and imagination. So actually the change needs to come from the people, not to be imposed on the people. And this is related to the idea that change really almost always needs to happen twice. Once in reality and once in the mind. So I found it very productive to actually think about transformation as ideas that arise from play. And I call it play because play is pleasurable, it's exploratory, it's individual centric, it involves risk-taking, if you like, it's de-risk experimentation. So I have a number of interventions like all pre-strategy games where essentially we think through the different circumstances that a company is likely to envision and have the recipients of the change actually come up with the ideas which are the foundation for the change rather than having change imposed upon them. So I don't have time to go through these, but in case you're curious, here are some of those games. So we have, for instance, an invert the company game which is designed to build the best business case for the exact opposite of the value proposition of the company in order to begin to loosen up some taboos that actually might be useful. For example, we have the Destroy Your Business game where we actually say if we were a competitor trying to exploit our misfortune, our current situation to destroy our business, what would be the best plan? And then we think about ideas around that. We have a bad customer game. A lot of, you know, as companies are resisting change, a lot of the times they will quote great customer survey statistics, but of course the logic is circular. The customers that are still with you are, by definition, the ones that still at least tolerate you. So the people you really want to be talking to are the people that have never been your customer, or the people that used to be your customer, or the customers that are disloyal or hate you. So you get the idea through play, we discover the ideas that will be embraced and owned by people that will be the foundation for change. So let me pause there. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If all else fails, inner children play, have fun, et cetera. Okay, Caroline has been out there speaking with leaders all around the world about how they're dealing with transformation. And so, do you want your flip chart? I'll start here and then make this. Okay, I have one over there, I can pull one up for you, let me know. Cool, thanks. Okay, what we heard now from that ecosystems are important, that the strategic implications are important, and we did a huge study and we really talked to the existing organizations and really tried to understand what are the challenges in the transformation. We all know that we need to transform, but why is it so difficult to transform? We just heard the numbers, only 30% are successful with the transformation, et cetera. Why are so many companies struggling with those transformations? And what we figured out, and I just finished this research project, which we really talked to more than 100 transformation officers. And what we figured out, and see, et cetera, what we figured out, that there's a transformous dilemma, how we call it. Especially for established organizations, because they have a business, they have a business model, they have been successful for years with their current business model. And now they have to come up with a totally fundamentally different business model because of ecosystems, because of digitalizations, because of new players, because of the WeChat, et cetera. So they need to change, they need to adapt, they need to fundamentally adapt. And this means they need to fundamentally transform whatever they did in the past. And we figured out, you can use the two S-curves for that. So the first S-curve kind of displays the old model, the current business, which made them successful in the past. But they realize that the merchants are not there anymore, that the growth is kind of not the same that it used to be. And now they need to start to come up with a new business. But how can they do that? How can they do that if their whole mindset, their whole dominant logic is like based on what they did in the past. And this is so challenging. And then it really comes back to people, to leadership in order to make that happen, to make sure that while you are still trying to be successful in your core business, because you shouldn't stop that, because you need the money, you need the management capabilities, et cetera, in order to finance the new business. But how can you then make sure to come up with something fundamentally new, something like an ecosystem or something like that in order to move in the next century? And that's the challenge. And we figured out that in order to do that, you need to, first of all, you need to understand why you need to do that. Then you need to have a strategy. But the most important thing is the how dimension. And that's what we are talking about today in this panel. So it's really the how can you make this transformation successful? And there are six dimensions that are important and three refer more to the hard-wired things. So obviously you need to have a right structure. So you need to take those initiatives out of the core organizations, because otherwise they will always be killed by the dominant logic of the current business. You will always find people that say, oh, that's not possible. We tried that in the past. You shouldn't, you don't have to try that again, et cetera. And therefore you need to move them outside the organization. And also like chief digital officers is something that doesn't work. That's also what we learned. A lot of companies hire chief digital officers, but that's also not successful because then the CEO kind of delegates the transformation to a chief digital officer. And then this poor guy is sitting there trying to transform this entire organization with no impact at all, because this guy is not responsible for a business unit. It's like typically they were new for the organization. I hired them from Apple or from all those fancy companies, but then they had no relationship to the core business and nobody accepted this guy. So in all those cases where we looked at it, they failed miserably with that, especially also Volkswagen. They hired someone from Apple, for example, but after a year this guy left because he had no impact. Nobody listened to him and the transformation didn't move forward. So you need to, the CEO needs to drive it and it needs to be structurally separate from the core business. And then these are more the hard wire things and then we looked at the soft skill things and these are really leadership, skills and culture. These are the three core dimensions that you need to tackle in order to be successful with this transformation. And I learned about a lot of inspiring examples out there where there are true leaders and maybe we hear something in a minute about true leaders, how to tackle the transformation. But it's really about managing this transformation and as a leader you need to make sure that you are still successful in the core business but that at the same time you are able to build up the new and the fundamentally different business. And that's so difficult. There are only very few persons out there that are able to do that because that means in one meeting you need to tell them, okay, failures are not allowed because if you have a huge production site where you produce airbags, you don't wanna have failures because otherwise if the airbags are not working well this costs lives, et cetera. So you need to make sure that there's a zero failure culture. But then if you think about moonshots and ecosystems and scalability, you need to think about failures and you need to allow failures as Rita just mentioned. So how can you be authentic as a leader in one meeting you tell them not to do failures and then in another meeting you encourage them to go for failures. And that's so difficult and therefore leaders need to understand that leaders need to embrace this challenge that is there and only then if they understand it and if they are also open to acknowledge that what they did in the past might not be the things that we wanna do in the future and these are the true leaders that admit that they don't know everything, that they are open for new ideas and that they listen to their people. And just one example there, I talked to some guys from Daimler as well and they really struggled with this transformation and especially what they said that they have those senior managers that are not used to this new world and they have to fear that if they kind of admit that they don't know what the future will look like and that they don't have this master plan how to move forward, then they feel they cannot do that because then the younger generation does not accept them as leaders anymore but that's kind of the wrong thinking, the wrong approach. As a leader, you have to admit that maybe you don't know everything but you allow other ones to kind of let them come up with the ideas. But they really say, well I don't want the people to talk to me in their hallway because I don't know what I shall tell them. I'm used to that my secretary has disappointment for me and then I get a kind of a summary what this meeting is about and then someone prepares this meeting for me and now in this new world where everybody talks to everyone I'm not used to that and so that's kind of also you also need to tackle this issue in organizations and not only the younger generation but how do you manage that the older generation is open to those changes. And then it's about leadership but then the skills, you need to make sure that your employees do have the right skills. So make sure that you give them the trainings that they need so that you have an academy or something like that inside your organization to re-skill your employees. In the future we need obviously technological skills but we also need higher cognitive skills. We need people that are able to connect with other people, people that are able to build trustful relationships, people that are able to listen to each other and to support each other and these are all skills that you can train and that you can bring across so make sure that your employees get those skills and send them to trainings or make sure that you have internal training programs. And then the last one is culture. You all know that culture is super important but it is something that needs to be tackled as well as a leader so you need to make sure that you and culture is not something you just need to invent some culture, something you as a leader can role model and if you kind of do the right things, if you are open, if you kind of admit that this transformation is challenging then you can also start changing the culture and the organization. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. So I hope you can see we tried to try to look at the ecosystem level and then from a strategy and decision-making level into organizations and how we might even introduce some gameplay and how we think down to the role of the chief digital officer or transformation officer and the challenges they face and that it's arguably maybe the soft stuff of leadership skills, culture that we need to focus on. So we thought our anchor might be somebody who's lived through that for many, many years and I think pointed to as a great leader of Tupperware. So Rick, we await your wisdom. Oh yes. Eight minutes of wisdom. Eight minutes. Hi everybody. I must say that firstly, Rita has written so much about strategy and I believe she'd agree with me. Every successful strategy or business model works until it doesn't and this idea of sources of competitive advantage and during is gone forever. So what's left? All a company ever is or was was a collection of people and the ones that can attract the best people, develop them, get them to fully engage there and reward them, they end up winning when it's all said and done. I've been blessed in my career to run fairly big companies, multi-billion dollar and not only in the Americas but living and working here in Europe, living and working in Asia and I always felt at home in each one of those markets because I did my best to spend time connecting with whatever that culture and I've got to say, the more I lived and worked around the world and felt a part of it in all of these different markets, I basically started to appreciate that most of us are the same. I very much agree with Ricardo and what his people have said that people generally act in their own self-interest and that's not a bad thing and therefore it was always incumbent upon me as the leader of the organization not to create an operating landscape but to enable creating operating landscapes where I could get people to become the best versions of themselves, to more fully engage in the organization. A couple of years ago at Davos I went up to Rosabeth Moscanter and congratulated her on her four Fs on operating landscapes and she said, my what? And I said, you gave it in the speech some years ago and I've been giving you credit. She said, I don't even remember that. I said, well, I'm not gonna give you credit anymore then Rosabeth always talked about an operating landscape that was fast, focused, flexible and fun and working with other people I knew I didn't create the operating landscape but I could enable that operating landscape. Fast, I wanted it fast and right. I've learned that during turnarounds. Focused, you can't do everything. Resources are scarce. Flexible, I was in the military. The Marine 85% rule, everything changes by the time the first shot has been fired. Fun because people aren't machines. They're not aircraft engines. You've gotta get them in the performance zone and then enable them to really have the refresh zone because if you don't do that you push them in the survival zone or the burn out zone. I become the chief landscape officer there and surround myself with people brighter than myself and do my best to make sure they have resources and get out of the way. Thank you, Rick. All right, so I think you'll agree that we've got a very broad range and a broad range of perspective and great depth as well. So what I'm going to do is start a conversation with the panel but I'd also like you to start thinking about questions you'd like to ask of the panel because within about three to five minutes I'll be opening the floor for any questions you might have of the panel. But it strikes me as I was listening that one of the themes that seems to come through is kind of a more of a naturalistic metaphor. Michael talked about ecosystems. If we think about ecosystems we tend to think about natural ecosystems. When we think about empathy and we think about how we relate on a truly emotional level that seems to be something that the AI programmers of the world are having a real hard time figuring out how to do because it's truly and uniquely human. Even Martin's conversation about navigating a landscape. So again, we're in a natural metaphor of crossing a river or scaling a hill. And then when Caroline was talking about the role of the chief digital officer who's just thrown in there, coming from Apple or famously Ron Johnson, oh, that person must be the answer and so if we just get that person and throw them in, they'll solve it. And it's not, it's a larger, more systemic challenge than any one person themselves can take on. And then as landscape officer. So creating the conditions to allow people to be their best selves. So I guess my first question is it seems to be a bit of a paradox because on the one side, humans are arguably the most flexible part of the system because we don't have to be pre-programmed and we can sense and adapt. But at the same time, we can also make organizations grind to a screeching halt. So what is it that gets us from one side to the other to motivate people to want to engage in the unknown, to step into that breach of uncertainty, confident in the ability to get to the other side? Is that pure leadership? How does that work? Anyone care to take that on? Martin, you wanna hit your mic there? So I've been thinking about mechanical versus biological ways of thinking about things. So I think the last couple of hundred years of corporate history have essentially been a process of dehumanization or mechanization or financialization of the corporation. And value judgments aside, it's not a bad thing if your environment is relatively stable, it's an optimization problem. But there are two problems with the mechanical approach, comforting though it is, the idea that we can know everything, we can control everything. And that which we plan shall be the case. Problem number one is the world is highly unpredictable. So right now the memory of performance, in other words, if you have a total shadow return premium right now, it would have decayed at 15% a year, that premium 20 years ago. Now it decays at 100% a year. So basically we have to reinvent ourselves. And the second problem is the routine tasks will increasingly be done by AI. So we have better means of the mechanical part of the business. So I see there's a huge agenda of thinking more biologically about business, whereby we think about experimentation, we think about what we can know, we think about what we can influence, what we can influence. And with this more modest proposition comes the disappointment that we don't control everything, but possibly the realism and the effectiveness of dealing with shapeable systems. I'd like to take a bit of an even broader perspective in a way and say that what I think is happening is that organizations have pathologies. That's part of the research that I haven't spent too much time publishing on, but it strikes me that leaving organizations to their own device will often squeeze out purpose. We've known that sociologists have documented gold displacement and how organizations that are created for something then start justifying themselves. It is normal, it is inherent, it's part of organized human activity. If you don't kick them around, they will do that. Now this is part one. Combine that with the second bit, which I think was a very important part in the way our economy worked until recently, which is that we have economies based on exclusion. What do I mean? Well, think about the fact that we had guilds and guilds essentially were the way that we organized activities, saying there are some groups of people whom we will tell they are responsible for particular activities, lawyers and doctors and architects. They are exclusive provinces. Then we started having specific mandates for organizations, charters, for banks, for insurances, for shipping companies. They are the ones who are allowed to do them. Others aren't really. Combine the two together. It basically says other people can't really come in and swell the game and organizations will start ossifying. What do you come up with? You have an organization that mildly or seriously abuses their clients and their employees, but inasmuch as there is no one else that's gonna be spoiling the game, that's the way that we continue. And now we go to connect to what I was speaking earlier on with the ecosystems. These boundaries are going down. The economies of exclusion are receding. The possibility of keeping people out just because you've got the exclusive right or control or access to the customer does no longer protects you. And that is why you now have the possibility of experimenting and all of these normal inertial habits of organization start leading you astray. And I was very heartened to hear Rick speak about being fast, focused, flexible, and fun. And you will know that at least the folklore, partly the reality, part of the folklore of some of the new organizations that drive ecosystems is that they do exactly that. They're like, hey guys, let's figure out how we can put shit, sorry, together. And they would speak exactly in these terms. And then, you know, they try stuff. They sometimes go too fast and they break stuff, as Zuckerberg had said. And they may not necessarily be good for society, but they create new things. And I think that part of the challenges is for the organizations that were okay to abuse their clients and abuse their staff because they kind of were protected, that now are not. And we're like, oh shoot, we got to start adjusting. And I think that it is within this context that we're looking at the transformational needs and at the requirements that we have, whether it is to look around corners to figure out how the organizations need to adjust or thinking about what is the project management, cum leadership dimensions that come in. So that's where I think the external stuff and the external stuff meet quite tightly. Anyone else around? Thank you. What's the program at Google they've worked on? I guess the last seven or eight years, it's called ICE or something, an ICE. And I just want to come back to the people side of it again. Charles Handy, who I met here several years ago and he's had a stroke and we hope he gets better because I want you to hear him sometime and feel his energy. Handy said so beautifully, and this relates back to the Google piece that things and resources can be managed however people need to be encouraged, inspired, and led in an organization. All this work they did at Google to find out what makes our best managers, the ones who got the best retention, it was interesting, you went to number eight before you got, and he or she helps me technically. Everything else was about interpersonal relationships and skills and their leadership and caring and that hard stuff isn't really at the core of that. The soft stuff makes the hard stuff and that's where we got to get this, that's why this is a good dialogue of the balance between the two. Let me see if I can pick that up. So it seems that we don't have creation without tension. So Caroline, you brought up the tension of we want to optimize the core. We don't want to quote unquote leave money on the table in the core business, but if everything Michael's talking about coming at us is the core won't last as long to the points that Martin said that the amount of time you have to live off your core is shorter than it was before so you have to evolve to new cores. So there's a tension of not leaving money on the table in the core, but certainly exploring for the new. And then Rick from your points like, or Charles Handy's point through you, people are ingenious. They're the ones who find new horizons. They're the ones who discover new opportunity, but they have to be motivated to do so, right? And when we have a financial system that labels things as assets and people as liabilities, we might be disincented if what we're trying to do is manage the core. So how is it truly leadership that sits at this nexus of now and later and assets and things? And how do we get that balance right as we move forward? Because we've also heard it can't just be one leader. We have to think about this more systemically. Any thoughts on how we can move through this tense landscape of now, later assets, things? Running public companies, I can tell you a great thing just happened three months ago of the business round table. They replaced the supremacy of shareholder value as the only reason business is in business. And I'll tell you, a couple of us started that about four years ago. Actually, in December, 2016, 50 fortune CEOs, we went and spent three days with a pope, and we talked about how can business in fact move forward, gain, but also others gain at the same time. And that is the managing the tension between the long and the short term. There is no benefit in the short term if there's no long term out there, if it destroys it. The average share of stock 50 years ago was held eight years. It's now six months. It's got to be managed. And it doesn't mean that tension needs to be nasty. The tension can lift things. I can add to that. So I fully agree. So it's this tension that you need to manage and you need to be aware that there is a tension and it's just not something risky or something negative but something that gives you a huge opportunity to really thrive for your organization. But you need to embrace it. You need to see it as an opportunity and not as a risky thing. And those leaders for me that are the most authentic and to say, okay, there is a tension. We have it and we have to tackle it. Those are the ones that gonna thrive and those are the ones that will be successful. The ones that are also sharing to the team. Well, I don't know how the future will look like but I know it's not the same that brought us there that will bring us to the future. And then you will be successful. For me, it's the leaders that are authentic and that see that tension as an opportunity that will be successful. Questions for the panel. Yes. I'm gonna have to pass the mic because we're recording. And this is a question for Michael regarding the overall theme for the Drucker Forum. I wasn't surprised to see that your case study was a Chinese one. And it seemed that the mantra used to be that data is a new oil. Now with ecosystems, it seems that data sharing is a new oil. My question is with GDPR, is Europe running out of oil? Well, I think that the question is more from that and the question is what kind of society do we want? Because I think that what we're seeing with ecosystems is a new way of organizing stuff, right? Because you can coordinate it in other ways. We, you can think about activities having been organized within the realms of large vertically integrated organizations or large independent organizations in particular regions. In a way, ecosystem is just another way in which we say how will we connect things. So I think that we are now seeing different ways in which we can put stuff together. It is clear that there are jurisdictional differences to put it very politely in terms of the way that information can go around. So of course, China and people in Italy and in Tencent and Ping An would protest and say, no, no, no, no, we also have our own protection laws, but it's not the same thing. America is, interestingly, is probably going to change. So California is pushing ahead in terms of some protection. We'll see what happens with a democratic primary because I think that data protection may end up entering the conversation more seriously, but it kind of depends, you know, do we have an Elizabeth Warren situation or not that will actually affect the data protection dynamics? Who knows what will happen? And I think that we will have some discussions on what we can do. The data use is important and will, I think, affect the ability of a few key firms to create massive ecosystems. Even if you cannot share data quite as easily and GDPR basically is clunky, you need to say, okay, but what do you do? You say, not okay. You said, solid, I need to sign it because I want the service. So eventually you end up for the majority signing them on. So we'll need to work out possibly a different system where there is some real choice of the creation of real choice. So I think that you will see a different layout and landscape in the concentration of the spread or the width of the ecosystems, but will they totally go away on that? Not really. The challenge right now is that more innovation is happening in China than is happening in Europe or is happening in the US. But the innovation is happening at two levels. The first level is innovation on how the heck do we put things together? So what are the case studies? I mean, I was speaking about Hire, there's Bengan, there's Ali, there's Tencent. You know, there's these big companies that are sort of finding ways of reorganizing data. But at the same time, I think that you have companies that are experimenting with the way that they organize work. Some of it is good. Some of it though, we may not like in this country. I'm not gonna name names here, but there are companies that use the term ecosystem and say, wonderful. Everyone is an entrepreneur. What does that mean, pray tell? Oh, well, basically, that we're not gonna give you a salary. If you don't perform well, you're fired and you don't get any compensation. And there is an upside, but there is a downside. We kind of saw that in the beginning stages of capitalism and we thought that it leads to the exploitation of workers where entering gig economy where the income disparities are going bigger. So there are some very real societal problems that we have to deal over and above what is going to happen on business level. So, huge question. But I don't think one that we can answer with sort of one simple stroke. Did anyone else want to take Martin? And then I'll come to you. We just surveyed 3,000 companies in AI. It's pretty clear that Europe has a problem way behind. Not only fundamental research, but on the application. So I do see some industrial policy questions. I think Europe either has to cultivate champion enterprises, so anti-monopoly lawyers and other things gets in the way, or it has to pursue niches or it has to chase the next big thing, which I think is internet of things. Nobody's figured out yet how to make billions of dollars out of industrial ecosystems, but somebody will. Or we have to play Machiavelli. In other words, we have to balance the U.S. and Chinese powers in a way which is good for Europe. So I think that there is an industrial policy issue in Europe, and I think it's a little dramatic, but I mean, I could imagine a scenario. I hope it doesn't come to bear where Europe ends up as a digital colony in a technologically dominated world by China and the U.S. Yeah? Okay, over here. Yeah, quick comment, a few of those speaking. Quick comment on what you just said. We all agree that the U.S. and China are at the table negotiating what's going to happen with IAEA and data and so on, and that Europe is in the menu. The big difference is that, and this is an elephant in the room, most of these technology investments are fueled by defense, by the military research. We can debate about that afterwards. I will strongly disagree. Now, my question is about the following elephant in the room, which is time and time horizons, because at the same time, you're urged to go fast and to innovate fast and to fail fast while you still are asked by your strategist and by the Boston Consulting Group to see long-term and to formulate your future in the very long-term and in the middle, you have a fateful rhythm of five years, the five-year strategy plans with this stupid English name that you promised to your shareholders, the five-year election time that you have in your political landscape. The question is, how do you go across that time horizon? And I will make a last comment, which is linked to time, which is speed. I've been running and deploying an entrepreneurship program. The big issue is not the one who succeed, even if they have problems. The big issue is the ones who do not succeed, but they know why they failed and they come back. And they come back energized, they come back twice as fast as the other ones in the team they joined back. And so there is, again, a disalignment in terms of speed and time horizons between those entrepreneurs who took a risk and who learned to go fast and the rest of the organization that it's still going at the same pace. So synchronization, time, bounce back, resilience. Any thoughts from the panel on that? Very quickly, I should say that last week, there was a fascinating session. Philip Hammond, recently having decided he's not going to go down for election, was in the NZZ SIF meeting in Zurich. And he was, I think that his view, which I would fully subscribe to, is not that America and China and America are dividing Europe. They are not dividing Europe at all. They're not speaking at all. And the problem with Europe, as Hammond put it, and I think that there's quite a bit of evidence for that, is that we are in the middle, and oh, sorry, is that we are in the middle, and you're like a child who's two best friends or two people you need really hate each other. I don't think there is any collaboration in the realm of AI between China and America knowing people on both sides. No collaboration, there's no division. Neither does anyone have an issue with Europe. Europe is simply asleep. And to go back to what we know in terms of the digital relatedness research that BCG has done, if we see the rankings of smaller and bigger companies, there is a big difference, a huge difference in the smaller companies. Also in terms of AI, unusually, because technology was driven largely by defense, technology is not driven by defense and AI is not driven by defense. The investments in AI and the people in AI are not in defense and the developments that are happening now are happening through much more distributed structures with AI developers and ecosystems. The world of defense driving it is gone. Rita, in your recent work, you've mentioned that we tend to think that things happen suddenly, but they don't, right? So these signals and looking around corners, is it right that things are sprung on us or is it that we're just not seeing the right signals related to this time challenge? Well, I think that question is really very well related to the theme of this conference, which is, as Jeff Bezos said some years ago, the trends get talked about and discussed a lot. I mean, there was a fortune article in 1995 that predicted everything about what would happen in the retail apocalypse that we're living now because if you think about it, the fundamental assumption of retail, since the time people started trading with each other, was that you had a fixed amount of real estate to deal with and so all of your key metrics, all of the things you believed were that you had only so much real estate to make money on and so it was all about same store sales and inventory turns and capacity utilization, but in 1995, someone wrote an article in Fortune and said, that's gonna all go away with the internet and what happened to all the retailers? They said, oh my God, the internet and they started spending millions, if not billions of dollars on doing this thing called e-commerce. Well, let's cast our minds back to the mid-90s. How did you get on the internet in the mid-90s? Yeah, you dialed in and only about 40% of homes, at least in the US, even had home computers and we didn't know how to pay for things on the internet. So from that 1995 period to today, right? So we got it wrong, right? We spent way too much money early on. Now, of course, all those predictions have come true, the retail apocalypse as well and truly upon us, we've got internet capability, but I think there's a level of ecosystem maturity that takes time to build and in the book what I talk about is Hemingway's wonderful quote from The Sun Also Rises when one character asks another, well, how did you go bankrupt? And the answer was, well, gradually and then suddenly. And so I think when you think about the maturity of an ecosystem, it takes a very long time for all the pieces to finally fall into place. When they do, it feels very sudden. When they do, it feels very sudden, but I think you can see the weak signals much earlier than the reality of an actual ecosystem that functions around you. Ben, you've been standing on your hand, so let me... Relate actually to something slightly earlier in the conversation, pick up with Martin. We were at a conference last winter, the winter before in Atlanta. Atlanta doesn't really have winters as such, but slightly less warm period of the year. And you were talking about the traveling salesman problem and the inability of human beings to crack it and the very quick ability of biology to crack it. And I took from that, which was a fantastic session, I took from that, that actually humans are pretty lousy at experimentation compared with our colleagues in the natural world, if you would like. And given that, how are we gonna do this experimentation when a piece of mould, is it a lot better than thousands of super brains, human brains, put together? Probably the most profound book I read recently, I'd strongly recommend it, is The Book of Why by Judea Pearl, that is sort of a popular version of his incomprehensible mathematical text about the structure of causal thinking. But one of the big ideas in that is that we have we have three types of cognitive operation we can think about. One of them is correlative thinking. If this happens, then that happens. Well, it's already the case that AI is better than humans in most of those applications. They machine learning combine very weak signals and very multi-dimensional complex data sets and figure out a pattern. This causal thinking, which says this happens because that happened, where actually both the mathematics and the machine learning is quite confused, but the thinking is that machine learning will eventually get there. And then there is counterfactual thinking, which is imagining things that are not the case, that could be the case, innovation. So although we can have programmes that create fake Leonardo da Vinci paintings and so on, which is an imitation of innovation, AI is very far from having these sort of counterfactual thinking abilities. So I think this is actually a very important insight because when we think about the future of work, in a way, this is a partitioning of cognitive operations. This is like having the right technology applied to the right problem. So I think there's enormous scope to systematize the sorts of things that we talked about, which is like rekindling imagination in large organisations that have become very mechanical at the same time we need to get out of the way of the things that are more effectively done with platforms and AI and autonomous learning loops. I'm not sure you'd agree with that, Rita. I absolutely would. I think one of the mistakes we make is we try to homogenize the way that we approach all kinds of problems. And different kinds of problems with different levels of uncertainty require different disciplines and it doesn't mean they're undisciplined. This is one of the myths that drives me nuts, which is people say, oh, innovation, it's guys in black t-shirts in the middle of the night with dogs and foosball tables, and it's not. It's a discipline like any other. And if you look at companies that are really good at innovation, a lot of them aren't what you'd think. I was recently at a conference at WL Gore, which is, they make cortex and other products. Fabulously innovative company, cubicle farms. I mean, we're not talking dogs in the office and boasted nuts all over. And terrifically innovative because they've cracked that discipline. So I think that's something to bear in mind. This is not a great unknown that we have absolutely no starting point for. And just around to that, I think that some of the novelty also is sometimes misattributed to the pure creative genius. And I think that I'd agree to say that there's more to it than that. You need to allow for creativity to happen. You need to give the context in which it happens. But there's also quite some a heavy, healthy rather dollop of business sense. One of the other case, the textbook cases in terms of the ecosystems is Ping An, which became the biggest insurance company in the world by creating this lovely ecosystem. So I was a couple of months ago in Hong Kong speaking with the Chief Innovation Officer, Jonathan Larson. And I was like, yeah, I hear all of these great expansions that you did. But tell me a little bit, you know, the logic of them. And I think that what is interesting is he says, well, look, we constantly evaluate cases. And if you want to know to what the secret source here is, is that 60% of the CFO's time is spent on evaluating KPIs. Now, really wanted to emphasize how profound statement that is. What do CFOs spend their time doing? What essentially that was saying is that the organization is focusing on what the heck do we need to chase? What do we tell people is important and what is not? And that if you ask a financial service organization, the CFO kind of knows their job and the KPIs is irrelevant staff of the people in HR or whatever else they're going to look at, then tish-tash, we're not gonna waste our time on that. I think that the discipline is where it connects the ideas with both the culture and ensuring that the good people do that, but also what you measure in SS. And I think that the companies that do do that do it without speaking so loudly about it. So if you only see the cool t-shirts, you're seeing only a part of the story. And I think that underneath the story, now underneath the cool thing, there's other stuff as well that does not get written up by people speaking about funky business, but it's more than funk. I was gonna try and segue back to transformation because I've gotten my red editor out of space. So it's interesting, transformation if you do a semantic analysis, it's associated with performance pressure, fixing performance, cost reduction. What we're talking about here, imagination, fun, cognitive partitioning, it's a deeper form of reinvention. And so I think one of the challenges is bringing it back to today's theme. How can we focus transformations at the very time when one is most fearful and under pressure dealing with performance issues? How can one focus it on the creative and the human? And I think that's right. So thank you for pulling it back for me. The challenge we face is that Ed Shine has a theory about learning and he says one way to think about learning is that you increase the survival anxiety to the point where people overcome their learning anxiety to unlearn something they already believe so they can make room to learn something new. So that's kind of the driving force side of Ed Shine. It goes back to Kurt Lewin, if you will, driving forces for change. And what tends to happen when we're under pressure to perform is that we're gonna add more driving forces, add more driving forces. But interestingly, Dan Keneman has said if all you do is add those driving forces, you're putting more tension into the system because Kurt Lewin sees change as an equilibrium between driving forces and resistive forces. So the new argument is remove the resistive forces. And the first one there is to tap into people's passion and energy rather than requiring them to be changed as what Martin said. So what we're gonna do now is we're gonna delve into that. We're gonna take a break, I'm gonna make it five minutes now because of the questions. So I'm gonna ask you to take a five minute break, stretch your legs and pick up one of these along the way. It's a people's center transformation pulse. And then come back to your seats and we'll start a session where we go through some of the 10 elements of driving people's center transformation to move and nudge the culture forward to be able to deal with the tension we have. Without further ado, please thank the panel for sharing their time. They'll come back at the end for their reflections. But for right now, thank you for sharing your time and energy. And we will come back at four o'clock on the hour, okay, six minutes from now. And please pick up one of these because we will be using it in the next session.