thanks so much Sehaam and thanks to
everybody for being here uh bright and
early
on a thursday morning um i'm going to
talk a little bit about how we think
about the future obviously this is
a absolutely fundamental component
of a leader's work where are we going
how are we going to get there
and this particular aspect of leadership
has i think become very much more
difficult
in the last two decades and many people
ascribe this to the pace of change i'm
not
sure that that's the case i think
there's something
if you like more profound going on than
that and that
is that our ability to do accurate
forecasting
has shrunk and when you think of
management management is essentially
based on kind of
what i think of as the three-legged
stool of management
which is forecast plan execute
so why is the first part of that become
so difficult
well the combination of pervasive
communications technologies
and globalization has turned
very much of what we do from work that
was complicated to work that is now
complex and complex is not just
complicated on steroids they're
fundamentally different ways of working
and different ways of being so systems
that are complicated
are linear they do repeat themselves
they're very well managed by efficiency
and we have a lot of control over them
they're very much like if you like an
assembly line
complex is a different beast altogether
complex systems
are non-linear there are patterns within
them but they don't repeat themselves
predictably these are systems where very
small things can have a gigantic
impact a virus for example a very small
thing
can have a gigantic impact and there are
also systems in which
expertise definitely matters but may not
keep up because
things change so quickly and
unpredictably
so one way of thinking about this is um
you know in the old days when we used to
go flying
you would go to the airport and check
your bags and people would load the
plane with food
those were complicated procedures they
often involved multiple different
companies
lots of different tasks and activities
but they were complicated they were
basically the same
every day all day regardless really of
airline
or airport and they were very
predictable
and they're very well managed by
efficiency
but once you get up in the air
your ability to know exactly what's
going to happen
your ability to know exactly at the
place where you
are what the weather events are going to
be
your ability to be confident that there
won't be a bug in the software that runs
the engines or there won't be a fault in
the engines
that slips away and as a consequence
flying
is a complex activity
so it actually is not managed with for
efficiency it's managed for robustness
which means the plane has more engines
than it needs
that's expensive and it has more
operating
different operating systems than it
needs that's expensive
because that way if there's a fault in
one the whole system doesn't break
so it's managed in a completely
different way
because the context is different
and my experience in working with many
companies large and small around the
world
is that this difference between
complicated and complex
is ill-understood if it's understood
at all overwhelmingly
companies organizations are managed for
efficiency
and that's where they go wrong because
if you start to manage for example an
airplane
for efficiency you have one engine
you have one operating system and if
there's a fault in one
the plane goes down i would argue that
the nhs for example in the uk
has really forever been managed for
efficiency
which is why as the epidemic started
there weren't enough critical care beds
because they were being used at capacity
super efficient very bad for surprises
and there was insufficient ppe because
you don't want a lot of stuff sitting
around if you know you're not going to
use it
and the problem is people thought they
knew
what the usage rate would be
so this difference between complicated
and complex becomes quite
important in terms of knowing where you
are what kind of system you're
inhabiting
and how you deal with it because you
deal with the two
in very different ways so
then the issue is that you can take the
complicated systems and manage them for
efficiency
and we pretty much know how to do that
but when you're in complex systems
and most systems that involve human
judgment are complex
then you're in a different place
altogether and instead of thinking about
forecast plan execute you have to
acknowledge
actually the forecasting bits always
going to be
a little bit dodgy so what can you do
i think the first thing you have to do
is acknowledge where you are and realize
that
efficient planning is not going to be
your friend here
you can't see the whole of a complex
system at once but what you can do
and what i encourage increasingly
encourage leaders to do
is to map the ecosystem that they
inhabit
who are all the players that impact your
business
and this is going to be of course your
workforce it's going to be your
suppliers it may be your suppliers
suppliers
it may be road and transport systems
it may be government policy it may be
weather
it may be all kinds of things but
actually until you can map that entire
ecosystem
you don't really know where you are and
then you have to start looking at that
ecosystem and thinking which of these
relationships
do i have a capacity to influence
so for example if i'm very robust in my
attitude with suppliers
so i may communicate with them more than
i absolutely need to
i will try quite hard to understand
their business
their ecosystem because one of the ways
i can make
my company more resilient is by ensuring
that all of the people places and things
on which it relies
are sources of trusted secure
relationships
now this isn't going to deliver
guarantees but it's going to make
my business more resilient more robust
in times of crisis
these suppliers that i work with and
know well
are more likely to help me out than
those that i
view in a purely transactional way
also in this kind of environment you
need to start thinking about experiments
right i'm not quite sure if the
deficiencies of my friend here i'm not
quite sure
how to deal with a world that's
unpredictable
so two examples of experiments
the one is relatively well known which
is to do with the dutch healthcare
system
the dutch healthcare system um looks
after a lot of people at home so it is a
very very well developed
uh home nursing system
but it used to be run as ours is here in
the uk which is it was productized it
was managed with great efficiency
so every quality of service for every
patient had a
barcode and it had costs and budgets and
schedules attached to it so two minutes
on wednesday
three minutes on friday five minutes on
um
monday nurses hated it
and it was very expensive to run so one
of the nurses who was involved in this
system proposed an experiment he said
actually there are two pieces to this
system
the first is complicated it's the
contractual arrangements between health
insurance companies
and patients and hospital systems
but it's bureaucracy we can and we can
um automate most of that and we can make
it
involve it can make it require fewer
people and we can do it more
quickly and it can be very very
streamlined
but the really unpredictable part of
this system
is the patient because actually even
patients with exactly the same
conditions will recover at different
rates so that's
inherently unpredictable so let's
leave that to the nurse's judgment
so on the one hand you have a rules
bound system
handling all the paperwork and on the
other hand you're saying to the nurses
use your best judgment you're trained
you're qualified you're motivated you
have vested interest in the
well-being of your patient because
that's why you work here
so use your own judgment so they did a
pilot of this it's an experiment
and what was fascinating about the
experiment is they found out that
actually when you start doing
home care nursing this way the costs
fall by 30 and the reason they fall by
30
is that the patients get better in
half the time now this is not the kind
of thing you could ever figure out
sitting
at a desk you would never have a model
that showed you that this was possible
the only way you can know this is to do
the experiment and when i asked the
nurse concerned just to block
what had surprised him about his
experiment because he just
hoped it would feel better he just
laughed and said well i just had no
idea it would be so easy to make such a
huge improvement
so in complex systems you have to make
it you have to do experiments to
understand
what might now be possible what
insights might i have that i can't get
any other way another great example
um i did some work with the chief data
officer
at the bank of england and he could see
as many people in many
organizations can see these days that
the workload was going to increase
and there was going to be no
commensurate increase
in resources no more people no more time
so he thought about it and he thought
well you know you can't just
sweat people more um he could have
done what most leaders do which is take
their leadership team off to a swanky
hotel to
uh come up with some grand plan but he
didn't feel very confident they were
going to come up with anything
particularly brilliant
so instead his experiment was to invite
experiments he told the entire
department what was going on
and he said i want any and all proposals
for what might make us more productive
and he got lots and lots of proposals
not everybody wanted to proffer some but
he was surprised both by the number of
proposals he got
and their variety so for example
one person proposed opening up the
senior leadership team weekly meeting so
that people could
sit in and know what was going on
someone else proposed radically
redesigning the appraisal system
um so he and you know the ones that were
pretty straightforward and easy to do
he did it turned out
that opening the senior leadership team
meeting to everybody
made no difference at all lots of people
came up along at first
they realized there was nothing
sensational going on he stopped coming
it was actually
pretty boring but it did have a kind of
benefit side effect that um
people were no longer suspicious about
what goes on in there
the redesign of the appraisal system
was tremendous it became much more
participatory
people trusted it more the quality of
their enthusiasm for their work and
their bosses
went up palpably
another proposal had been made for a
different way of tagging the data
that the bank of england has to deal
with and this
create produced an exponential
improvement
in productivity it was oliver told me
the kind of proposal you could never see
from the center that the people who are
at the center
you know their expertise is a little
dated and they're too
far from the coal face but the younger
engineers whose digital know-how is much
fresher
and who are much closer to the problem
came up with a spectacular solution of a
kind that the senior leadership team
would never have envisaged or even if
they kind of had
inklings of it probably would never have
dared to propose
now there are a whole bunch of
interesting things in that story
the first is that asking for experiments
releases a huge amount of pent-up demand
and knowledge within the organization
and it isn't that everyone had proposals
lots of people this is not the way they
want to work
and they didn't have to so what it also
identified were the people who actually
wanted to think and contribute
to strategy and again one of the things
that oliver said to me is he said you
know we
tend to think of strategy as something
that's led by
senior people it's a kind of you know
top of the table
activity he said what really surprised
him
was how good strategic thinking
was proliferated across the organization
it was not concentrated only at the top
there's no way he would have had that
insight had he not tried his experiment
and this is much of the thinking that
lies today behind the rise of open
strategy
which is doing very much what oliver and
yosta block did which is saying
use your judgment use your imagination
tell me what you see from your position
within this very complex system
now of course for it to be at its most
powerful
requires that people understand their
system the system that they inhabit
and that it can be talked about in a way
that even those who are in one part can
understand the other part this comes
back to the
fundamental theme of this conference
which is conversations
and the avoidance of jargon the ability
to connect with people
who may know things that you don't
and therefore create a need for an
inclusive
language and um on that front
i was very intrigued when i was doing
some work recently with the financial
services company
and we were talking about culture
and how things were improving and i said
well you know
how do you know things are improving ah
they said well we've
we've done a survey uh-huh
and what does it show it shows that uh
employee engagement has gone
from 59 to 61
uh-huh i didn't think 61 was terribly
high
um and what does that mean there's this
kind of long silence
and i said well it's obviously getting
better i said well
maybe it's getting better it may just be
that all the people
who hated working here left between
surveys
it may be you gave it on a sunny day not
a rainy day
i mean there are all sorts of things
that could explain this
to change and it may be meaningful but
it might not
so then there was another silence and
someone else well
so how would we know what it means
and i left the next silence really for
as long as i could
because i thought this this must be
obvious but apparently it wasn't
and he said well actually what you have
to do is you have to sit down and talk
to people
you have to talk to them about what does
it feel like to work here when you get
home from work
do you tell your kids what you've been
doing at the office all day do you even
get home in time to talk to your kids
are they even interested or have they
listening to you talk talk about your
work have they completely lost interest
but you actually have to sit down and
talk to people at all levels of the
organization
to find out actually what does it feel
like to be here
so there's a theme through this right
which is that
our inability to forecast means that
there is a huge amount about our
organizations
that we can't see and don't understand
and one of the critical ways to get
better
insight from which some foresight might
emerge
is to have frank and open conversations
with people about where we are
what the challenges in front of us are
and to solicit
their ideas insights observations and
suggestions
this doesn't work in a hierarchy
and it typically doesn't work in very
ornate bureaucracies
because people at the bottom have so
little awareness
of what's going on at the top i would
say
finally you know that what this lack of
an ability to
predict really challenges leaders to do
and i think increasingly this is their
biggest task
is to hold the tension between two
things
an organization that is going to have
some future at
all needs a large
future for facing guiding principle
and i specifically don't use the word
purpose because it's already been
hijacked by corporate communications
to a point of almost instant
meaninglessness
so i talk about guiding principles
because the guiding principle of an
organization
is what it does and why
so for example at cern which is the
center for
um nuclear european center for nuclear
research
the guiding principle is new knowledge
of particle physics for a peaceful
purpose that's what defines
everything they choose to do
at arab the construction and engineering
firm
it's building which is the built what
they do building
a sustainable future so what that does
among other things is it tells them what
they're not going to build
which is which is infrastructure and
buildings
that are not sustainable so these are
organizing principles that tell a
company or an organization what it does
and what it doesn't do it's long-term
it should last it'll be viable relevant
meaningful for at least 100 years
and it tells people why they're there
if that's rock solid
then you can have focus on having a
workforce and
systems that are super agile and nimble
which allow you to be hugely adaptive
and responsive
when change occurs that you didn't see
going
this looks like a paradox it's extreme
short term and extreme long term
and holding the tension between the two
is the job
of leaders if you are only agile
you become incoherent you just react to
everything
until you have no idea what you're there
for what you're doing
choices become opaque and random
if you're only long-term you may not
achieve enough
fast enough and you and you risk
becoming redundant
because you're not responding to a
change in context
holding the tension between these two
and keeping an
ongoing rich conversation
between the leadership and everyone in
the organization
is i think the only way
in which we can overcome our inability
to forecast
and make good in intelligent
explainable choices and decisions
so i'm going to stop there so we have
plenty of time for
conversation yeah brilliant thank you
margaret
um uh insightful and useful as ever
um there's um a quick question
was the home care example nursing
example
uh there was a question about where they
might find that um
in your work um so we've written it up
in my book uncharted
it also appears uh in my ted talk
which is called i can't even remember
what it's called it's something about
leading in an unpredictable world
um so yeah you'll find it there
okay thank you and um
it is it's uh there's a tension um
between you you talk about tension
between
you know long-term forecasting and
being agile and um
there's a struggle isn't there as humans
um even when we're trying to be agile we
put structure and process around that
um to the extent that then it becomes
another constraining
um aspect um can you give an example of
where you've seen
um a leader actually be responsive
and fluid in their situation
yeah so so one of the issues in this
tension between the very long term and
the very short term
is it changes how you have to think
about planning
so um a beautiful example is uh
at cern for example they do five-year
plans
um and and bear in mind cern is dealing
with greater uncertainties than most
organizations on earth
because they're doing experiments into
things that might not exist
right so this is pretty this is pretty
uncertain um but they you know so
they're thinking about
okay if we want to do certain kinds of
experiments we need certain kinds of
machinery so we need certain kinds of
people
we need certain kinds of expertise you
know so they can kind of roughly
schedule and budget that
roughly um
but as they do that and when they put
together the five-year plan
it is not scheduled and budgeted you
know to the penny
so when some bright spark comes along
um like tim berners-lee and says i have
this idea for this thing
this way of managing our information
that is nowhere in the budget or the
schedule
but both are loose enough that because
it's a good idea
you can say yes important to recognize
that all the commercial partners cern
went out to
uh declined to invest in it so cern
funded it itself
um similarly if you look at the sanger
center in
um cambridge which is the sort of uk
base for the human genome project
they will do five year plans but when
suddenly in the middle of the five years
a good idea comes along
again the budget is loose enough that if
it's a good idea
and it serves the ultimate kind of
principle
of the organization then they have the
capacity to respond
and say yes so
essentially what these leaders are doing
is they're very
tight on the quality and the precision
with which
work is done but they're very loose
in planning for it and i think this is
especially crucial for companies which
are most companies
that depend fundamentally on innovation
because our obsession with efficiency
has meant that we do these two
three five year plans we we
design them with maximum efficiency and
a new idea comes up
and there's no room for it and everybody
can see there's no room for it so often
the idea won't even come up
because you cannot forecast or schedule
excellent ideas you need to be able to
plan for the future
with quite a lot of wiggle room
now nobody has been taught to do this
everybody's been taught
to do the perfect kind of the perfect
budget which is kind of lost
down to the last toe clipping
but what that does is it sends a message
that actually is no point having new
ideas because actually we can't afford
them for the next five years
everything's spoken for and in a world
where actually new ideas are sparked by
changes in technology
changes in context and at ferocious
speed
that's always going to leave companies
behind and so when companies come to me
and say what can we do to be more
innovative you know my first question is
let's look at what you're doing to
ensure that you're not innovative
and a lot of these sort of scheduling
and budgeting processes
do exactly that they send out the word
sorry
no room for new ideas
thank you um we've got
um some questions coming in um i'm going
to start with
one from clayton who says thank you
margaret for your inspiring clarity
human to human interaction is clearly
fundamental to dealing with complexity
could you also please comment on how ai
might or might not help us with the
uncertainty of complex
systems i think ai is pretty much a
disaster in complex systems actually
because ai is looking for patterns
that are meaningful and patterns in
complex systems may or may not be
meaningful i think ai
is absolutely bloody brilliant
for complicated systems brilliant
at finding um
information which otherwise you could
not find
but i think it's it's incredibly risky
uh in systems in in complex systems
and that's partly because a lot of ai is
looking for uh
it's its intelligence is based on
historical models
um which means that it's not itself
adaptive
enough to a changed context
and so you may find patterns that would
definitely were meaningful once but may
not be meaningful now
so human judgment is really fundamental
here
and it's interesting i spent a lot of
time when i was researching my book
talking to people in the intelligence
communities
and you know they deal with uncertainty
all the time because for example if you
take
terrorism there is no profile of a
terrorist
terrorists understand that actually not
being the same is
exactly what gives them their strength
so ai is v doesn't help the intelligence
services in trying to figure out
you know these people behaving in this
way does it mean something or not
it could it couldn't so without human
judgment you're really
in a very dangerous place
yeah and and uh that's that i think that
is a challenge that is something we have
to get better at as leaders is finding
that tension
between you know where do you where
where is efficiency and process really
optimal
and then you know what's the where's the
elasticity
and how we can be responsive and you
talked about efficiency
hotels are always a maximum occupancy
that's what they're driving towards and
it really
i think not only does it put
the organization at risk of being able
to respond to something
unexpected but it also as you say
there's a mindset that goes with it that
means people stop creating or stop
you know they might see something that
really would be great to do but don't
um there's another question um
from catalina ecosystem mapping
can be overwhelming and paralyzing where
do you start
to be sure you can make a difference or
innovate at a system level
rather than at a product level well
i mean i think if it's um overwhelming
and paralyzing
i don't think ignorance is the
alternative
i think you have to understand your
place in the universe
as it were but i think you know then you
have to keep asking the very practical
question
how much of this can we influence and
the
the answer is a lot of it you can't
there isn't a company in the world
that could influence the development of
covid19
right this is a natural process and by
the time you see it it's there
so the important point
is not is to understand okay most of
this
i can't influence but these pieces
i can and so i want to check
that those pieces i'm relating to in as
rich and robust away
as possible but i want to keep an eye on
what's happening
even on this stuff that i can't
influence because it is going to
influence
me and it may only be
that it's going to make me think about
robustness
more often or in a very particular way
because all that stuff that you can't
influence but which influences you
contains uncertainty
so what is your defense against that
bear in mind
uncertainty can't be quantified whereas
risk can so it's a different
beast so i think really it's a way of
staying humble
and i think this is true as far as what
in one's individual life
as in one's business life right which
there are many aspects of my life which
i absolutely
cannot influence or control
but i'm going to keep a wary eye on them
in case there's change there which i
now need to respond to
and but so much of the technology
these days is about gaining more and
more control over
the unpredictable over the seemingly
unpredictable or the
you know the stuff that we're told is at
risk and so
it's a challenge for leaders to
it take what does it take takes practice
to
be able to balance those two things to
be comfortable
with there's an element of uncertainty
and i don't know and i can't control and
i have to delegate that and my
team will respond according there's a
lot of letting go of control
um that that requires from legals well
that's why i think you end up inhabiting
what i think obviously is kind of tight
loose paradox right which
is you have to be loose in control
because otherwise your organization
becomes too brittle
you know we absolutely saw this within
the national health service
in the run-up to the pandemic right the
illusion of control
must have been very comforting wow 100
capacity in icu beds that's super
efficient
but it is an illusion because you know
it's not just that the pandemic
overwhelmed it
all you need is a major road traffic
accident to overwhelm it
so so this can you know the the control
is is a dangerous illusion you've got to
have some slack in a system that you
can't predict
right so the important thing is to be
able to see
in your organization which is the
complex
bit and which is the complicated bit
because they can't be managed
in exactly the same way and because
since the industrial revolution we've
managed almost everything with the mind
to efficiency you've seen a lot of
errors take place because there was no
slack with
which to adopt adapt or to defend an
organization against changes for example
um you know if you're in the plastic
straw business
this year or last year you know suddenly
the world changed
so there was there were elements of
uncertainty so if that was your only
business
that was your only product you were in
real difficulty this is one reason why
companies
diversify one company i worked with
lost 50 percent of its sales overnight
because of a bad review on amazon now it
looks
super efficient to have all their sales
online right
no stores no other way of selling and so
they sold
everything through amazon so they put
essentially they entrusted the whole of
their business
to one sales point that's
really risky because actually you can't
control
every customer's response to your
product or what they're going to say
about it
so you have to think about how do i
spread
some of this risk
in order that one single point of
contact
not bring me down i mean there's you
know there's uncertainty
all over the place right nobody thought
me too was going to kind of
burst out of nowhere when it did we've
had sexual assaults on women in the
workplace
forever why suddenly does it emerge why
suddenly are all these companies
in big trouble because of major lawsuits
so you have
to recognize that this stuff is all the
way is out there
all the time and so if you
if you manage your company with enormous
efficiency
you are not going to be resilient and if
you think that by
forecasting you can prepare for this
stuff
i think you're you're deluded about the
complexity of
social and economic life
we have um two more questions um
one is from andrew how much of
a time overhead do you think is
appropriate
for the consulting across
hierarchy um 10 being three to
four hours per week well i think it
depends a lot on the nature of the
business and the cadence of the business
the kind of cycles according to which it
operates and i think they're kind of two
pieces of this
um one which we've all been talking
about for a long time
which is hoping to have a
culture of safety where when people
see things that might be dangerous or
a huge opportunity they'll speak up
so they that's a very formidable source
of resilience if you can
create a culture like that i think
there's been a lot of talk about
psychological safety in companies and my
concern about that
is there's a lot leaders can do on that
front
but there's a lot they can't do in
an economic downturn for example no
matter how
much you try to make people feel safe
the economic context is going to make
them feel
unsafe and perhaps timid
but i think you have to as a leader try
to create an environment
in which people can say i've had i've
had this great idea
or i've you know i think we're i think
we've got a problem
volkswagen emissions and we need to do
something about it now with those kinds
of
um voluntary contributions
are very easy to make and very easy to
be heard
but then i think there's the more
strategic stuff and then i think it
depends on
where you are are you in a crisis in
which case do it fast
are you doing strategic planning in
which case you may take a week a year to
do it
um do you have a very specific problem
that you really must
solve now so the best example of this
is it pixar where after many many many
hugely successful movies they found that
the making of movies was getting much
slower
and much more expensive and the classic
response to that is
you know senior leadership team retreat
lots and lots of spreadsheets
cut cut cut cut cut hand it back shove
it down the throat so the workforce and
hope it works
at pixar they decided at the very last
minute not to do that
but instead to close the company for a
day
and say here's the problem we think we
need to cut
the cost of movie making by 10 we want
all of your ideas about ways to do this
in the event that process meant they cut
costs by 20
because they had so many ideas all of
which turned out to be really productive
that actually they had more ways of
impacting the business
than the leadership team had even seen
and some of that was to do with culture
and some of it was to do with process
and some of it was to do with technology
so it depends on the nature of the
problem
um i don't think it necessarily has to
be you know wildly lugubrious people get
terribly
terribly frightened by the notion of oh
my god
i'm going to have to talk to the
workforce and i'm going to have to ask
them for ideas
that's going to take forever world cafe
processes work really well
i think one of the key things is if
you're going to adopt a process
like that the crucial thing is when you
have an idea that everybody thinks is a
jolly good idea
you have to ask who's going to volunteer
to lead the charge with it
because if nobody will don't bother
it's the easiest thing in the world to
say it's a great idea oh i don't want to
touch it if nobody wants to touch it
it's not that great an idea
so the element of volunteerism i think
is also crucial
brilliant and i think we can squeeze in
one more question
um i'm just going to check uh that i
haven't missed anything
because some people have put lots of
comments in the chat
so there's a question from bettina why
do you think the corporate world is
misusing
purpose why do they instrumentalize it
well you know we've had mission
statements and we've had vision
statements and i think
there's a huge desire
to look good without
necessarily doing good because looking
good seems to be easier and quicker and
cheaper
um i mean i think the truth is
that if a company is going serious about
purpose
it has to be willing to change
and in many instances you know and i've
looked at lots and lots of corporate
um purpose statements i have found very
few that mean anything
i mean one of them you know and i won't
name the company but one of them
is helping britain flourish i mean it
could be a florist
it could be a school it could be
um a insurance company
i mean it could be anything i have no
idea what it does
you know it could be a new cannabis
manufacturer
for all i know so it doesn't do anything
really so this is just pr which is you
know the kind of toxic
mix of pr and corporate cons
so it you know it has a real muscle
and um and if it has real muscle
then it's going to have consequences
and i think what happened to purpose you
know purpose really got
welly so to speak when paul pullman
took over unilever but when he took over
unilever almost everything at unilever
changed
and everybody thought oh paulman's great
he's such a hero you know we need a
purpose statement but what he was saying
is now we don't need a purpose
statement we need a purpose
and the purpose has to change what we do
always so it's not ever finished
but nobody wanted to do the most
companies didn't want to do that hard
work
so instead they did the purpose
statement
instead of thinking about and pursuing
the purpose it's just
easier quicker cheaper much more
efficient
yes and and we do rally around certain
words as the latest
buzzword or yeah this concept that that
you know
um other people are talking about and we
need to do as well so
um margaret this has been wonderful um
just
some lovely messages um in the chat um
people saying they love the explanation
uh the difference between complicated
and complex
and efficiency versus overall
productivity
um love the pixar example
uh what else i'm going to scan this very
quickly
um love the point on psychological
safety
um and uh knowing what you can and what
you can't do
um so uh yeah and
and some others which i'll will pass on
to you and share with you
but thank you so much for for coming on
uh this morning and
and being our keynote uh brilliant uh
week
i hope you all have a really productive
and creative day
you
