 This panel is about disruption and this word is becoming very dangerous because we're talking about disruption then the disruption of the disruption and and let's try to just to understand a little bit better better that and Manage strategy and manage this is strategic intent under this environment Is a topic that we want to cover now. So when we saw a professor means bear graphic with all that What is happening today is that there is arrow coming absolutely from everywhere at all moments So when you try to reach out to one arrow the error is not an error anymore. It's something else So how do we handle this permanent? Crisis and this permanent disruption and in order to moderate this panel I want to invite Julia Kirby Outdoor and senior editor of Harvard University Press and Joining Julia on the stage and on the stage. I want to invite Martin Reeves Director of the Boston Consulting Group Henderson Institute and Martin is currently leading research on corporate longevity among several other initiatives I want also to invite back to the stage Professor Harry and Alex Ostavaud, please This great opportunity to be a moderator that has to do very little in the way of introducing my panelists since obviously I've already heard from two of them I'll just say just a couple of very quick things which is that I get to hit highlights and for me highlights are always Book so I want to absolutely mention Henry's forthcoming book Well, it says the best title bedtime stories for managers when to do out. Is it is it out yet? Or I can just quickly summarize it's a it if you are not already following Henry's blog Which is technically called a twog Then please look it up because the bedtime stories for managers. It's not because they will put you to sleep It's because they're nice and short and that's because it's a it's a compilation of his best or favorite blogs so Henry you've already heard from Martin Reeves is next to him now Martin is is gonna do a 15 minute section next so I do want to say a few things about him and I'll start again with the book His his book is your strategy needs a strategy. So that's kind of a Metta concept like you thought it was hard enough to come up with a strategy now You kind of got to come up with a strategy for how you'll come up with your strategy So I'm sure we'll hear more about that Martin is a senior partner at BCG Managing director of its New York office and the global director of the BCG Henderson Institute Which is BCG's think tank that looks into issues like resilience strut artificial intelligence and how it will affect workplaces and competing on the rate of learning amongst other big ideas And then of course we have Alex Ulsterwalder whom you know already Again, I'll hit on the book that you if you haven't already Read his various writings on the business model canvas that he developed first of all You could simply google that phrase and you will find voluminous amounts about it But you really ought to take a look at business model generation and value proposition design Those are his two books with Wiley bestsellers introduced a lot of people to the idea of how to redesign your business model So we've of course this whole day has been spent talking about Turning strategy into reality and the gap that often exists between ideas and execution and That and of course we're going to continue to talk about that here, but the special emphasis of this panel is on How does any of that change if you're in a time of crisis? So especially now we could as Ricardo was saying earlier Just assume that we're in a state of perpetual Crisis, but I think we'd all assume that something you know that there are crises and there are crises and so sometimes there is a really particular need to To strategize in an extraordinary circumstance and what I want to know from our panelists is is is How is that different? Should it be different? And can we learn something from moments like that that would inform strategy? design and delivery More generally so one thing that Roger Martin said earlier that I loved was the distinction He made of two types of CEOs does anybody remember it the two types of CEOs with a set piece CEOs and the read and react CEOs and it was the people who had kind of a prepared script versus the people who could Sense and respond what was going on and I realized what we have in our panel as we have we're doing both so I have Set piece gurus here who are also Read and react gurus. We're gonna start with the set pieces each one of them is going to offer Put out a point of view about why? Time of crisis creates different or possibly not different Challenges for strategist so Henry you kind of queued up that you were going to introduce us to some new things on This panel. Why don't you start? Okay? I think you want us to do like four or five minutes. Yeah, just put out some ideas. Yeah So so I I think the idea of strategic learning is far more relevant in times of difficulty crisis Unpredictability because you how can you plan how can you think ahead? How can you even deal with formal strategies? You have to learn them as you go along Whereas if you look at Ikea today, it's pretty stable for Ikea from what I can tell in the furniture business So they learned it years ago, and they're just doing it. They're executing it now and doing it very well I love this quote from a South African newspaper a long-range whether forecast should be obtained before leaving as weather conditions are extremely unpredictable And and maybe that sort of covers it, you know They discovered a manuscript written by a sailor who was in the battle Trafalgar after he died And he had written down he remembered everything in vivid detail And he wrote it all down and the boats weren't where they were supposed to be according to the plan and the and the history And and I concluded from that that the farther back the battle is in history the more deliberate the military strategy Because they lose the emergent part of it They lose the rest of it and all they remember is how brilliantly it was executed and of course who's writing the history usually It's the if he survived or whoever survived so so I just talked about thinking first Compared with doing first and and there's also seeing first, which is the visionary a visionary like Steve Jobs a visionary like like You know Watson and the computer business and so on well Watson in 1948 said I think there's a world market for about five Computers and Winston Churchill in 1939 said atomic energy may be as good as our present-day explosives But it's unlikely to produce anything more dangerous. So even the visionaries didn't see it at first They just saw it before other people and that's the learning. They didn't see it. They didn't know it They didn't didn't come as a an apparition from the sky They learned it and and and that's the way strategies Develop in times of difficulty and crisis Maybe that's all I want to say In time. Yeah, basically that's my introduction. Okay, Martin. Do you want to I? Missed part of the morning, unfortunately, but I Listening so far to what has been said about the speeches. I think there's a sort of a cartoon that we're painting which is that That that strategy was, you know, very predictable and was planning based and now the world's entirely different We need a something to some new thing to replace that that old thing and Interestingly, I think business books in this discipline of business strategy, which after all is fairly young 1965 One of the first works. I always begin by saying the world is more dynamic more complex and and we need a new theory I spent some time pouring over the data as whether that's actually the case So what is certainly the case is the world is more dynamic So the life cycles of companies and products seem to move faster on average Whether it is more uncertain actually depends upon which period you're talking about and which metric you're talking about But take for granted that actually the world is more uncertain and is more a fast-moving. That's on average I think the strategy should not deal with averages strategy should deal with the particular So if there's been a shift in the environment that I would withdraw attention to it's the fact that in Whatever variable you choose to look at whether it's the the variants in Market prices or the mean period of leadership of companies more or less whatever strategic variable you pick the variance has increased Which means that the gap between the faster and companies the slow-going companies the Volatile industries the less volatile industries has increased which I think means inconveniently for strategists that That it becomes harder to generalize about strategy that probably there's no single thing that we can say about strategy So I I'm not sure this is where you were going Henry but I I think you need to look at the particular circumstance and I think there's there are circumstances Take the chocolate industry for anything. I don't think your digital chocolate has been invented yet chocolate tends to grow with GDP. It's a it's a fairly planable industry and So planning is still of some use There are probably more unpredictable industries where a more adaptive approaches are useful There are approaches where a visionary season does something for the first time. No visionary approaches is appropriate There are there are now it's possible with digital marketplaces and so on to have collaborative emergent strategies where more of a collaborative approach approach as possible, so I think my opening message would be that the The strategy for your strategy the the mindset for your strategy or paradigm of your strategy needs to adjust to the particular circumstances of of each business that you're dealing with and we should be I think wary of generalizations Okay, thank you Alex If I could have the iPad I'm gonna build on a little bit on what we've seen this morning But then get into the question of crisis so if they can put up the iPad But I think one of the things that I see in the organization's ideal with around the world is there's a very similar reaction to crisis and The reaction is always we're gonna focus on the core what we already do well because we need to fix things we need to you know Reduce the headcount in corporate and that's not a bad thing The problem is that While these organizations are focusing on the core and often under the very intense pressure of activist hedge funds Or activist investors. They actually kill the whole exploration part Not intentionally, but they want to be so good at managing the core that they kill their future And you just can't cost cut yourself to the future. It's not possible now Is it wrong to focus on this? No, I mean take a lot of stories of turnaround I mean, obviously Apple is a good one where Steve Jobs came back and really focused and that is a must but at the same time at Apple they were building the future and The organizations that I see from the inside or those that I read about in the press they start this process But I feel like they're killing this part and a lot of the people those that you know have the talent to innovate they leave those companies if they're not fired and They're losing their best innovation talent and I do think you know building on the whole aspect of learning Strategic learning that we were talking about well strategic learning to create new growth engines is a bit different than the strategic You know learning to to to improve the core So I think we need to remember that it's both and it will be both even in times of crisis So focus yes, but don't kill the whole innovation engine while you're refocusing now another example might be GE where I think there was you know, I'm Richard I think mentioned GE this morning where there was an article in Harvard Business Review He was talking about what they were building here and the exploration engine and they were following this whole lean startup movement And I think they were doing some really good work there But in their case they were actually not probably and it's easy to say from a chair here They were not fixing the core enough So it's not either or it's an end clearly and that's what makes it so difficult because these two worlds are pretty different When it's fast one is slower and then there's also similarities talking about the learning So I think in times of crisis you cannot just focus on one you can't cost cut yourself to the future You know, I'm I'm gonna ask all three of you this question Just the a big theme throughout the day and we heard it first from Roger this morning You know was the level of engagement that is required in Strategy and in this in and that there shouldn't be this distinction between Design and delivery the same people should be involved in in both and he used the phrase You need people at the bottom who think they are making choices My impression is in a crisis situation All that goes out the window and as much as people may is as true as that is that the immediate Effect of a crisis and I don't know if this is human nature where this comes from but it seems like all eyes snap to the If not leader, let's say highest person highest paid person. What is it the hippo the highest compensated person in the room and Elephant yeah, it's and so and there seems to be that sense of a shared sense of okay What matters in a crisis moment things have changed on us suddenly Some kind of response is required suddenly and so what we need is decisiveness and speed and so let you know, let's not deal with this inefficient process of lots of Consensus or lots of participation, but let's just look for marching orders It am I right about that first of all is that a bad thing? What how could we? How could we should we have a different response than that in a crisis situation? Martin go ahead So I think we should probably choose between two two types of crisis. I mean there are you know things that happen to you that you're not prepared for and Yeah, I think the evidence says that in those situations If if financial or competitive performance is declining that that speed is a key part of the solution and And that may require more emphasis on on on top down but but our analysis would suggest that the overwhelmingly most Important success factor for transformations is actually the degree of preemption So companies that initiate major change that impose a crisis on themselves while their competitive financial performance is still above industry median levels Actually, I'm much more likely to do to do well in the long term and that sort of changes is less. I think reactive and And and more creative and requires more exploration and therefore is actually better done bottom up exploring Opportunities and that's tied. I think to a second observation which is in the short run. There are many ways of driving performance you can financially reengineer you can Then cut costs you can improve margins in the long run For the for the top quartile of the S&P 500 I'm talking about a 10-year period Almost all of the increase in total child return of the high performers comes from growth Actually and growth is a non-mechanical thing cost-cutting can be somewhat somewhat mechanical, but a growth especially in times of Aggregate declining growth is about is about innovation and so therefore needs those more sort of bottom-up approaches Henry Yeah, I'm not sure I'll say something very different You know, there's there's there's geriatric management, there's pediatric management, and there's obstetric Management, so the obstetric management is are the entrepreneurial startups And I have full faith in them to turn on a dime because they often do Ikea was developing under its entrepreneur and bang Suddenly came up this idea, but an unassembled furniture and they switched it wasn't wasn't tough A lot of management is geriatric They're they're in very stable very established very big organizations And they're not the entrepreneurs and they may not even have that kind of exploration kind of talent So so to depend on people like that to turn around an organization in crisis it happened sometimes But more often it doesn't succeed and in those cases sometimes it's the bottom-up that can generate The idea is if people are listening and big if if the company is established as a community of Human beings and not a collection of human resources There's got to be a sense of community ship so that ideas move around and people say yeah, that's great We need that we'll do it you put such an emphasis on Strategy as a learning process. What about the connection of learning to times of crisis? I feel that probably a lot of companies don't Capitalize on the learning event that a crisis could be yeah, because they're not established for as learning organizations Whereas maybe from this little evidence, maybe not kia was you know if a worker could come up with an idea and And and that gets adopted by the whole organization. That sounds like a very to use a popular word a very agile kind of organization Yeah to build on what Henry said come back to the point of leadership also I think the it's not an either or again, but you need very strong leadership in general during crisis even more But the leadership is about creating that Context where ideas can emerge and again ideas are not the Problem there everywhere people are not the problem. It's the structures So I believe that that strategy is more and more about designing the right structures for learning actually to happen and I don't think this is new, but I think it is Becoming a lot more important because we are in a dynamic world and business models expire faster than ever before So if we don't create that context where the ideas can't come from bottom up and growth engines will always come from bottom up They're rarely Don't want to be absolute, but they rarely are top-down top down Actually are usually large bets that blow up into 100 million or billion dollar failures There's many of those if you take Ikea that was bottom up Amazon web services was bottom up And there was a strategic moment of course where the organization said we're going into that But these were bottom up and I showed the numbers before they're they're pretty big. Can I add one word? Please? I just would change one word We need to get rid of the bottom bottom. We can talk about grounded not grounded and Grounded because if the chief executive isn't grounded nobody else will be grounded So really we should talk we should I'll be talking about grounded and drop that top Middle vocabulary and I will add another vocabulary change is that we might want to start talking about the chief entrepreneur Because if you take the you know, one of the fastest growing companies Amazon turns out the you know Chief executive is an entrepreneur and is behaving like a chief entrepreneur and Apple is where they are today because there was an entrepreneur So I think the the question is Can Organizations be managed today and continue to grow with anything else than an entrepreneur I think the hard part of that if I may comment is So assuming that we accept you know, Henry's contention that we need to focus more on On bottom up or grounded learning I think it's easy to say that I think it's a hard thing to do because it requires a special way of Directing one's perception one's one's attention. It has to be very fine-grained You know what how do you learn faster? How do you how do your visionaries see the see the opportunities earlier? I knew you have to pay attention to anomalies the the one data point that doesn't fit or dissatisfactions They're 1% of customers that that don't like your product All you have to pay attention to analogies what's happening in a in another industry that may happen in your industry Which I think is is about a way of seeing things and therefore a very deep cultural trait And I think that's that's rather subtle. So I'm not sure the structure can solve for that And I'm not sure that many saying it can be easy enough for people to actually do it Yeah, you know top of the if I can I just intervene quick top isn't is a metaphor It's purely a metaphor There's no reality other than the floor the person sits on and and the salary But otherwise it's a pure metaphor just like human resources or a pure metaphor I'm not a human resource or a human asset I'm a human being and I like chief explorer may be more than chief entrepreneur of that adopted You know though, Henry It's not I mean money is real So when you say well, it's just a metaphor well except other than salary But I mean in fact the the organization has placed a value on certain people as being more valuable than others Maybe it's just a function of experience, but what in your world What is the work of the highest-paid people in the organization? Oh, but I think I think Alex had it perfectly a few minutes ago that to create the structure to encourage a kind of community ship to To do all those things that will bring the ideas through the organization not necessarily up but through I mean, you know an organization is what you physically see if it's in a building Then it's probably got trouble because people don't like to climb stairs But if it's in a big flat area look at that big apple around thing, then it's a horizontal thing physically but but Just I think yeah, I mean chief is my first my doctoral thesis in my first book I mean what a chief executives do they do all kinds of things they give gold watches to retiring employees They do all kind they keep the communication flowing and all that But for me central to this discussion is the encouragement of of exploration when necessary and exploitation when necessary too and Tying that to the salary piece. I think there's one thing that we're serving that's very difficult for companies to deal with so let's say somebody is working on the next growth engine and That actually can emerge because you have ten other teams who were also trying but they didn't win So you could you could call them failures But I've shown you the numbers you can't pick the winner So you actually need a lot of teams to experiment for one team to win Now if you call that one team the winner, you're really calling others failures, but they're not they're contributing to the system It turns out that in the pharma industry you actually already have that, you know scientists Work sometimes their entire careers on molecules that never Commercialized means that they could be seen as failures But they know in R&D that we need those scientists to have some compounds that emerge So we need to actually find a better way to reward those who are contributing to the system so it's very very difficult because you're gonna have to start rewarding failure and Once you start doing that you will actually avoid future crisis because you'll always have perpetually ideas coming up So I think today we have organizations in crisis because they're not built for for today's world So I think crisis is you can't avoid it. It's not inevitable I do believe sincerely that we can build invincible companies, right good I I want to leave time for questions. So I want you to be thinking about your questions I'm gonna throw out one more before we go to the floor, which is Not a lot of talk has happened today about M&A now the one intriguing for me exception was Vishal and one of his slides had a point that said use the M&A as an acceleration tool you know, that's an interesting intriguing but When you think about I mean this is one of the major disconnects between design and delivery Is when top management says I you know We have a new strategy, but God forbid we entrust these people with executing it present company They have no idea how to do this We'll just acquire it and and we'll make our strategic statement through M&A And we will execute our strategy through purchase Martin what so I've looked at something I call post merger rejuvenation. I'm most mergers are to build scale and and to generate cost synergies and that's a that's a very good thing But I think the the example of Disney and Pixar is a good one where a large company acquires a small company with interesting ways of doing things and chooses deliberately not to integrate it for cost synergies but actually cultivates the difference and uses it to cross-pollinate and stimulate the the mothership and and so actually I've looked at post merger rejuvenation It looks like the motives of companies merging are rarely for most post merger rejuvenation And even when they are they rarely succeed, but some companies like Disney do succeed and one of the key success factor seems to be not integrating but rather treasuring the difference and more investing in In cross-pollination and stimulation I think it's definitely a possible route to go because the the rebalancing of exploration and exploitation that Alex is talking about It's it's it's a crisis which which many large established companies face and We haven't seen the proof of the pudding yet. You know, we hope that's going to work But but but M&A could be one of the routes to to provide that stimulus of a Great Can I just add something to that because I think when we say M&A we probably often think about the big acquisitions Facebook with WhatsApp and Instagram and I think that is definitely a way to acquire growth and acquire rejuvenation But what we don't think of is well, what if you're learning at a ground level, you know As an innovation team you figure out what you should be doing But then decide okay rather than doing yourself because now we're going in software business or AI then you make the acquisition to go faster So it's not acquiring a company, but it's a choir well acquiring a company But not as a big entity already, but just to go faster. So it's not just the very big acquisitions It can be smaller acquisitions that fit into your growth engine and what you're building So I think we need to always remember that there's a whole scale there and again It's not for me. It's never either or it's the whole innovation spectrum merges an acquisition doing it yourself Merging teams everything we need to really kind of get up I think a little bit more sophisticated also with the language we use When we talk about these things It's a whole a whole series of things that we can do Acquisition itself is a learning process in the sense that when you watch companies that are engaging a lot of acquisitions They don't always if you go back to the tobacco industries I think they started by buying the paper that they use buying companies and made their paper that it was kind of a vertical integration Form of acquisition and gradually they learned their way in in those days. They learned their way into food But it took time So acquisition itself is a learning process in the sense that you discover Whenever I'm sat with a company we go through strengths and weaknesses You know, I find that incredibly boring, you know, we're general motors. We know how to build engines. No kidding. That's terrific I'd much rather go through Successes and failures discussion what works and what doesn't even with acquisition or anything else Where are we really good? What works forget strengths and weaknesses? What works you discover strengths and weaknesses by studying what works and what doesn't work? I saw a very good example of that in the day actually so a big company that is pretty good company a leader in its industry was acquiring another company And their attitude was On average, we're probably better than the country we're buying But if we de average enough if we look at 50 parameters, there are probably five where they're better than we are We're gonna find what they are and we're gonna learn from them, which was a very healthy humble attitude. It's good British All right, your turn Help me come up with some good questions for this terrific panel There's one over here Hi, my name is Ricardo so following the The theme of the panel around how to do with strategy in times of crisis my question to you is When do you? cut your losses in a strategic initiative, right? So Watson IBM Watson had some layoffs recently I can think of a few other examples the car Division within Apple those are not as celebrated But they happen and my question to you is essentially if you think differently about when to cut your losses in some of those Initiatives for Neal territory in times of crisis. Thank you I'm very inspired by something that Guy called Roy Rosin said he was used to be the chief innovation officer of Intuit He he he said with evidence that in the software industry The things that turn out to be the best products are not the things that people thought would be the best products They're the ideas that had the most chances to evolve. So I wonder whether cutting your losses is Not they should not be regarded as a temporal thing, you know, are we making losses right now? Do we need do we need to cut off the stream? But rather has has the project had enough chances to to evolve so it's about speed of iteration So, you know one interesting way of looking at things that very few companies avail themselves of sells off is their Relative learning rate, you know, if you look at the speed of new product generations the speed of new product development versus Competitors are what great Are we learning or what rate are we experimenting if you look at companies in that way on? Conventional, you know metrics companies could be 10% different and so on but in terms of like comparative learning rates There can be a hundred percent difference huge differences between companies Yeah, I think the worst time to cut your losses when the stock market is getting impatient Because you have to make your own decisions not look the stock market make decisions for you I love the case that Joe and James Ryan Quinn wrote years ago about Pilkington glass Where where this engineer had nice name happened to be Pilkington, but he wasn't family He came up with this idea of a new way of making plate glass and they kept that it for seven years They wasted a hundred thousand tons of glass Developing it, but he said something very interesting He said we kept going because we never met a problem We couldn't solve every time we solved the problem We hit another one and they kept at it seven years and Changed the whole industry If I can add one point, I think I would almost phrase frame the question a bit differently And of course you want to cut your losses, but even before that how do we invest and measure? Our projects I think there's a big problem there that we make big bets and then obviously big bets are more risky Because we're not spreading our bets and then you know you cut the one thing you have great What you really want to do is? figure out how to measure innovation or future growth engines differently and Only invest in scaling when you're ready So that's what some of the companies that are really good at innovation actually do they don't scale prematurely and You know take Alexa for example that took a long time that was in the labs. They didn't cut it They really had you know a lot of experimentation going on, but they were smart enough not to scale prematurely So what you were saying about the learning aspect you need to give time to learn is Extremely important because we can see that a lot of technologies will succeed based on timing and right business model So we probably don't want to cut that But we want to find a way to integrate that into our way of working So I think the reason we now need to deal with cutting projects in times of crisis is that we prematurely scale That's a problem. We should avoid so I can't answer you know when should we cut them because the whole system is set up wrong Lots more questions. Why don't we take this one right here? Thank you. I want to ask a question about how to Integrate Failure as a success. So that's the lead-in, but I would share just a story I'm from Seattle So on occasion you sit on a plane and you you meet some of these innovators and they share stories And there was a person that worked for Amazon who gets to work in the In that crazy place he said where we try out ideas and he was we were talking about different things that are in the news one of them was the just go concept where you're able to walk into a store and Just pick out what you want and just go and everything is handled through our intelligence And he said we made such a big mistake with that and I said what was the mistake? He says well, you know, we got everything right the technology the display the sense of what it's like to go into it If people loved it, but we made a huge mistake. I said well, what was it? He says we forgot about stocking the shelves if you're successful So inside of this idea was a failure factor But we talked about Amazon I was being able to accept failure and it's a good idea. How do you program it into some more? to more Less in it with two less innovative companies that haven't experienced that yet because we're all familiar with the model where if you fail You you're you know, you're sort of walked out of the the machine I have a very strong opinion. So if I start briefly I think When the CEO or the chief explorer starts embracing failure and says, you know Failure is an integral part and we're the best place in the world to fail and says that to shareholders which was the case of Jebesos to his shareholders in 2005 or six or something and Acts like that with the right metrics. That's when you're getting somewhere So number one the leadership needs to embrace it and number two We need to put it into our metrics meaning we're going to have ten hundred 200 projects and we're not going to depend on one so we can experiment So it's really all it comes back to the metrics today I think most organizations have one set of metrics and it should fit all well guess what then everybody's gonna avoid risk So it really is you know, it's again organizational design design the metrics for learning to happen and it will it's not magic It's really not magic Henry do you want to add anything just because failure is so tied up in learning? well, I I'm inclined to repeat with another word I think it's all about the culture basically and saying the same thing that our culture is either Sympathetic to failure or it's not sympathetic to failure and then it's back to community shift Basically, but if I've been in so many organizations where everything comes down from the top and and and there's such an awful culture That everybody kind of grinds in their own mill and nobody gives a damn about anything and those places are sick I they they spend a lot of money on geriatric consulting But but I always feel that these companies should die of heart attacks and not Answers that go on for years and years and years Okay, bring the good point is one again the heart attack So my friend Steve blank who thought you know launched the lean startup movement He says well, maybe companies should die right maybe it's time for a lot of these organizations with the wrong organizational structures to die Yeah, and be replaced maybe right? Yeah recycle the resources including the human resource So it can be it's a yeah, it's painful for the human factor, right? I mean in that sense. It's easy to say it here, but there needs to be some rejuvenation They're creative destruction as we have long called it. Yes, exactly Maybe do we have time for one more question? Yes, yes over here. Yes And we'll make this super quick so that we can keep this event running like a Brazilian I'll try to be fast so I feel as it's a contradiction when we talk about community ship and Rewarding failure all this talk about failure within on the same token, you know, we're using the the the Steve Jobs example of innovators There's a lot of There's a model out there mental model in Organizations that look to the CEO whether their chief explorer or whatever the highest paid person at a company and the idea, you know, of course, you know in the materials people do work in their own Self-interest and often times in a lot of organization that self-interest is impressing the boss And the if the boss has this vision, it just there seems to be a big contradiction there in terms of Community ship and the ability to get those ideas up when you're led by a vision here. I Have an idea. Why don't you just replace CEOs with mirrors? So when they look to the CEO, they see themselves. They say go get that done Exactly And he let any Briefly, I think we often personify Things that we haven't systematized. So I think some of the things that Alex said about metrics I think it's possible to be systematic about some of the magical properties we celebrate and in famous innovators It's possible to measure, you know, the the number of experiments We're doing the yield on those experiments the progression speed of those experiments the cost for failure Some companies measure those things many many don't and they don't have to appeal to magic properties and personalities. I Think you know that what you're bringing up is very important because what we see Steve Jobs on you know Come used to see him on covers and we see these successful entrepreneurs on covers What we forget is that often they were actually not the decisive factor alone, right? I mean Steve Jobs did not invent the iPhone Do people know no they don't because he was on the cover of every magazine and you know What that you can find in the world same for entrepreneurs one entrepreneur succeeds They're 500 that don't and then in that company there were you know a lot of people that contributed So we glorify people and I think that's not helpful in it You know an age where learning is so so crucial. I think there's education to be done there Let's not put people on covers of magazines Alright, that's all we have time for and we'll have time to hear more from Martin in a few minutes, but Join me now in thanking him for his his contribution to this panel and of course also and reason Alex