 I Speedo not We're super excited to have Lennart en jönan with us and you spent decades in management and research positions. And one of the things you've done is that you wrote a book summarizing a lot of the things that you've worked with and seen in research and your experiences and I'll basically just leave the floor to you. I think your slides are here. Big hand for Lennart Franke. En gärning som. Now you hear me. Yeah, very good. Fine thanks and thanks for inviting us. We were happy to be here. It's been a great conference so far. And I will probably refer to some of the presentations we've heard before. Now it's an important thing that Tommy just said. We are one Akademin Jöran, who is a researcher and a lecturer at Uppsala Unastiet, but with a considerable practical experience from before writing his thesis 20 years ago. And I am a practitioner, a reflecting one. I have to say I've spent more than 40 years in a knowledge based service industry banking. I have to say it. Yeah. And 35 years of that in in the most agile of banks. Anyway, I was the CEO for six years at that bank. And we claim therefore that we combine combine theory and good practice when we make our presentations and when we wrote our book together. Now the majority of you come from it as far as I understand it's important therefore to say that what we are presenting what we're talking about is how to scale agile product management and the success that is hat has proved in that area to corporate culture. To management modeling and to governance of companies, both large companies and small and medium sized companies. We are discussing a philosophy for steering whole companies. And as you again said this morning organizational culture is at odds with agile from time to time. And so we have all of us to address the full corporate culture if we want to make full organizational organizations agile. We are anxious also to point out that when you move from a more traditional kind of management model into an agile one, you have to experience terms as that and theory to. We have to have a holistic view on it. You have to be coherent when you do it. It is a problem if you try to move back and forth. You have to be basically consequent when you when you make these changes. Now what we're talking about is how to move from traditional mechanistik. The centralized type of management to do away with typical mechanic mechanistik tools and means because they don't go well with people. They don't go well with people of flesh and blood. That's the basic message in our book. And therefore we try to describe this by using four dimensions. I have it. Det är det. By using four dimensions by dimensions or criteria. Of how to move a whole culture consequently to become more agile. More organic if you want and to make it possible for people to be agile leaders and professional within that framework. The first dimension is to focus on customers more than on only shareholders. That means moving away from the shareholder value philosophy. As it was born in the 1980s. The short sightedness that came from it. Quarterly capitalism as we usually calls it. And move into true customer and market orientation. And to an organization that creates long term relationships with not only the customers and the markets but also with its employees. And the second dimension that we tend to focus on is. To move from and avoid short sighted and to move away from. Having short sighted and unwanted risk being created in an organization by using incentivizing by using intensive for senior people in terms of cash bonuses. But instead stimulate intrinsic motivation. That is the ordinary purpose mastery autonomy. As we would usually call it. I'm quite convinced that gamification is one way of doing it. That's one of the speakers this morning we're talking about. I also find it extremely interesting that a behavioral economist has become one of the Nobel Prize laureates this year. I think that works in the direction that people like ourselves really want to see. I also think that the Bonita Roy's message is important. Why we actually can trust self organization. We have it in us even as part of the evolutionary process. As she said. The third dimension that we look at is. Moving away from minimized moving away from detailed instructions and controls. En inställd move to trusting people's intrinsic driving force to do her and or his best. The wish to be accountable as someone put it this morning. I think it was James Priest. And I also want to remind you and line the importance of what PM IA started to say this morning. The fact that lots of people don't feel well in their organizations these days. There to mechanistik. The too much top down control is one of the important reasons for that. And the fourth dimension that we point to is the need to move away from budgeting. Rolling forecasts financial plans broken down to personal financial targets. And instead assist performance with the relative targets and by benchmarking to comparable competitors actual numbers. That the financial side of what we're talking about her. But only one of the four dimensions when we speak and we will make presentations to audiences where there are lots of controllers and people involved in financial steering processes. This becomes the main topic in this audience. I'm sure that you can evaluate and see the balance between all four of them. Now the important message and the underlying message that we want to underline is that people like ourselves all of us have to convince not only IT officers and product developers. But we have to influence senior managers. We have to influence CEO's directors general in public organizations board members. Låts fairholders even to make this happen. Because it will make them perform better become richer if you want. And to deal with dynamics and competitive markets. Much better. Now you're on these ideas about agile new or old ones. I'm glad you asked me that question because as I said I'm a grumpy old researchers as you know for researchers nothing is ever new. At least not in management. I have a book here a reference burns and stalker 1961. The book is called the management of innovation. And what they do in this book among other things is that they talk about the mechanistik management system under organik management system. Så det är just the organism metaphor. Quite some time ago and it wasn't but Bonita Roy started it all. Probably not these guys either. Probably older. But this is the first I've seen it used in management. Det talk about the talk. Let me just quickly go through it. Det talk about creating motivation through contributing to girls. Instead of through pay. Det talk about cooperation teamwork and interaction. Instead of specialized defined responsibilities. Det talk about extensive horizontal communications instead of hierarchy communication. Det talk about informal organizations. Instead of formal organizations. Det talk about encouragement instead of supervision. External fokus. Instead of internal fokus. And the main the main focus here is on people and culture and not on technology and routines. And if we look at this isn't this slightly similar to what we call agile. Don't you say so 1961. Even I wasn't born like that. So this is here we know we know this that the knowledge is has been known for quite some time. Has it been tested. Yes it has. And now we're going to give you some examples of companies who at least claim that they are very agile. In some cases we know that quite well in some other cases we have to trust what we read. This is new core. It's a steel company. The biggest American steel company and it is managed. Quite similar to a handisbanken where Lena comes from extremely decentralized. Very small headquarter. And they are so decentralized that they double a lot of functions like James warned us about. They do that because they believe in decentralization. They still talk to each other and learn from each other. Det har blivit extremligt successful. Sämt. You probably know about that one. The most democratic organization in the world. Well they actually have a voting system for important business business decisions decisions. One man one vote. Just like Bonita ask for before. Så det är en del har också binda har varit groen extremligt fast. En del har varit successful för många, många års. South West Airlines. That is the biggest American airline. Ryanair basically took all stål. All that strategy from them except one thing. Ryanair wants to have really cheap employees. They don't want to pay much because they are a low cost airline. South West Airlines. They have the best paid employees. How can they do that if they are a low cost airline. They can do that because they have fewer employees. It's as simple as that. And the other big difference to Ryanair is that South West Airlines have the orange top when it comes to customer satisfaction. We all know where Ryanair is. Don't we. We have Virgin or if we should believe them have managed to stick on to the entrepreneurial culture that they had when they started off like a small record company in the early seventies. And they have been extremely successful and they have. Yeah you all know that they have don't have to go in to that. But they say the reason is that they have clinging on to the entrepreneurial culture they had when they started. Even though they have been growing. We have of course handelspanning and we talk a lot about that naturally in the book. So why do we bring all up all those these old cases. We bring them up because they have been doing this successfully for 20 30 for 40 even 45 years. And that sustainability if you can do it for one year or five years or even even 10 years that's fine. But if you can do it for 45 years then it seems like these ideas are actually working. That's at least the way I understand. I may be wrong but I don't think I'm a stubborn bastard. I. Of course we know that there are a lot of people here sitting here working at small it and consultants in firms etc. As agile as these are probably even more agile than these companies. You're also doing really really well and we love you too. We love you too. You don't have to worry about that. But the thing is I think it was James who pointed that that it's easier to be agile when you're young and small than when you're big enough. So the trick is to remain. There will be some point in time when people will say OK. Now we can't work like this anymore. We need to have more structure. We need to have more orderliness. Everybody needs to know what they are supposed to do etc. We can't work like this anymore. This is where you have to stretch keep the rubber band stretch. And this metaphor is from John Valander. You know the old handelsbanken CEO said decentralisation. It's like a rubber band. You have to hold on to both ends of the rubber band. Because if you let one end go it snaps and that means back to centralisation. Back to hierarchy back to bureaucracy etc. Because there is some kind of natural force driving us in that direction. OK. Now I think I'm losing my breath. Do we have more time or what should we do. Maybe we have time for one or two comments from. Ja. Do you have any questions. What do you say Tommy. Was it all clear. I say we start with a big hand in that case. Let's do that first. But there was a question. Thank you. It's gift time. Sorry about that here anyway. All right. Come on. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's very difficult. Please. It is the question was what do you need to do in order to maintain the rubber band stretched in the sense. It is very closely tied to what we said about accepting that the decision to move really move a full organisation over to a more agile management model. It's a very senior one. It has to be made by the CEO supported by the board. And if there are substantial shareholders it has to be anchored with them too. And that means that when you have made this change and unless it would be there only for one or five years as you said. But it would stick for a number of years. It has to be guarded the full time by senior management. So as soon as something goes wrong somewhere in the organisation. It's not allowed to make the decision. We have decentralized too much. We have been too to agile. We don't follow rules or whatever. But you have to stick to the model and deal with the problem with the problem itself individually but not be tempted to go back to a top top managed top down managed model. It's a matter of self discipline when it comes to the managers. Because everybody who is a manager wants to have more control because you are responsible and all that. But you have to reject that. Now I'm not going to give myself more control. I'm going to trust people to do their job. I'm not going to evaluate every detail they do or put in financial rewards for reaching sales targets or whatever. I'm going to trust them to do their job. My job is not to get my fingers in their job. But you come back to the owners several times in your part as well. And you do that in general. So is it a benefit to have passive owners or is it the benefit to have very active owners in your experience? I would say active owners. With the right mindset then. Yeah, yeah, that's true. But owners who know more about the business. It's more likely to let you do your job. Right, but if you have passive owners like on the stock market to really don't know anything about the business. If you get down one quarter with your financial results and the stock rate gets down, they will start thinking about selling. And that creates this short termism we see in lots of companies today. I also think this goes well with active owners, but I also think there is a message for investors in here that the investors need to be more long term and not give in to what I call quarter capitalism. That was partly where I was getting at because if you're in here and you need to have a checklist of things to consider before moving into company A, Y or C or organization, then that is becoming a bigger and bigger topic on the checklist. All right, but you'll stick around. And I mean, I have tons of questions, but we don't have much time for them, I guess. But you'll stick around so we can pick your brains a bit more. All right, thank you very much. Thank you.