Discovering Your True Value Today and Into the Future

Joe Santana: This is ERG Power Talk and I'm your host, Joe Santana. This program is for ERG and BRG leaders, executive sponsors and business unit leaders who want to unlock powerful, measurable business impact through their ergs while championing the goals and needs of the communities these ergs represent. Our vision is a future where ergs aren't just appreciated. They're seen as essential to business success, driving revenue, cutting costs, powering marketplace growth, and creating workplaces where everyone can thrive. Our, uh, goal is simple but powerful. To help you deliver so much value that your organization sees your ERG as a must have investment worthy of more resources, greater influence and stronger support. We know you'll get top value from every episode. So now let's get to the show. Hello and welcome to another episode of ERG Power Talk. I'm your host, Joe Santana. Right now, many ERG leaders are sitting on something far more valuable than they realize. You and your members often understand emerging customer behavior, workforce expectations, community trust, cultural blind spots and shifting human needs long before those signals ever appear in anyone's corporate dashboard or strategy meeting. The problem is that most of this insight never gets translated into business language and communicated to leaders who can use it to make decisions about revenue growth, workforce strategy, market expansion, innovation or long term competitive advantage. In this deep futurist and economist discussion we're having today, we challenge ERG leaders to stop thinking of themselves primarily as organizers of internal activities and start seeing themselves as powerful insight and and value networks. This conversation will help you understand how demographic insight, futures thinking, AI disruption, human connection and evolving customer needs are reshaping business and how you can position yourself and your members as increasingly valuable contributors in an economy where understanding people may be one of the last sustainable competitive advantages left. And to help us address all this, we we've got the perfect guest. She is a futurist and economist who advises multinationals, governments and international organizations on how to identify and capture value from demographic and social shifts. With a track record spanning financial technology, labor markets, strategy and emerging market entry, and a futures fellowship with one of the world's leading global development bodies, this guest turns demographic foresight into a revenue strategy.

Bronwyn Williams: I am Bronwyn Williams. I'm a futurist, economist and business trends analyst. That's the short version.

Joe Santana: That's the short version. Welcome to ERG Power Talk. I appreciate having you here today and I actually did do some research on you and I thought my printer was going to run out of paper there for a while because it just kept going and going. But a lot of interesting stuff. And I zeroed in on a few things which informed some of the questions that I plan to ask you today. So, Bronwyn, you've built your methodology around helping organizations become creators of their future, rather than becoming victims of it or just standing there and watching it happen. And when you apply that lens, the demographic data that ergs now sit on, that there's employee resource groups they have about consumer behavior, workforce expectations, and market needs, what do you see as the magnitude of the business opportunity that most of these companies are currently leaving on the table?

Bronwyn Williams: I think the first thing is figuring out what that data is that you have and what it isn't and what it doesn't and can't do. Because, of course, data is never the full picture. It's always a piece of the puzzle. And how you put those pieces together will give you different insights as to both your present situation and your future opportunities and potential threats too. But the first step, of course, is figuring out what the good stuff is and what the bad stuff is. What we still find is that right now we have a very different challenge to what we had even five and 10 years ago in that now we probably have more information than we able to process using our human brains. We'll get into AI, uh, in a second, rather than having too little data to work with. The problem with too much data is not, of course, knowing what to focus on, because we can become so easily distracted by the wrong thing, going down the wrong rabbit hole, making the wrong inferences, just generally focusing on the wrong thing. Then there's also the case that some of the data that you have might not actually be good data quality data. It might not be properly mapped. So, of course, the data just mapping and hygiene layer is so fundamental for anything that you want to do before you can start layering human brain power, or of course, technological machine power to actually getting the answers out of the thing. But of course, that's the first step. Assuming, of course, we have good data, hygiene, we have good data, and the data we have in our systems is correct and as complete as possible, Then of course, there's amazing things we can start to do now using not just human brain power, but also machine power to start getting the right answers and to start even just to start asking the right sorts of questions. This is always something that I'm very curious about. And from my perspective, my answer to that question is that often the missing pieces are within data not being connected within the same organization. The data is siloed that somebody has access to One part of a person's profile, somebody else in a different department has access to another piece of that. But we're not necessarily linking the dots to connect that full picture together. And I know, of course, if anyone is listening to this who doesn't know a bit about the way the world works, the sorts of answers to this question can also feel a little bit scary and full of surveillance. This is of course what companies, the, uh, likes of Palantard do. They tie together all the different data sources and allow you to put it all together. People are very freaked out about that at the moment. But there's a very big difference between your government doing that without your consent and a company doing that with data that has been given to you with consent and with the expectation that the customer, by sharing their data, will, will actually get a better service and a better product from you. And this, of course, is one of the really interesting things I figured out quite early in my career when I was working with quite a, in the future space, working with quite a big insurer. And what we found was that our hypothesis was myself and the insurer people were reluctant to share their data, that they were suspicious of sharing personal insights with such a large organization had so much power over them. When you actually asked the question if people were quite clear in saying, we're quite happy to share our personal data with you if you're going to use that data, uh, to give me a better deal and a better solution to my problem. And that I think I've said quite a lot. But that kind of frames the sort of philosophy upon which we can look at the great power and the great tools we have with still a sense of responsibility and goodness. So we don't have to talk about these sort of data. Connecting ideas as being entirely dystopian. There's a whole lot of good stuff that can come out of it when things are done consensually, clearly and with clear, not just intent, but clear delivery on that intent. That's where trust can be found in this whole situation.

Joe Santana: Once again, as you were talking about that, I was thinking that in organizations, the people who are the employees who form these staff networks and who form the employee resource groups, they literally are as diverse as the customers that these companies serve. They're a reflection of the world outside that the company is trying to serve, either directly because they're a B2C or indirectly if they're a B2B because ultimately someone sells something to someone and they have these perspectives in mind in terms of what it is that people will like or will not like why a particular approach or a particular angle of, uh, presenting a product or a service will appeal to a certain group of people, and why it won't appeal to them or to another group of people, or what it is about the company that makes them more effective in doing what they do. And what is it about the company that puts an artificial obstacle in front of them in terms of what they're doing? And all that information is locked in their heads. And so you have these groups that are there and they're doing a celebration of Women's Heritage Month, or they're doing some other celebration of some other aspect of people in the organization and so forth. But in the meantime, what the organization is not extracting is that valuable data. And to your point, taking that data and putting it in some kind of system or in some way where there's good data hygiene, where you can then draw on that data and use it to inform you as to what you're going to do when you're coming up with an idea or a product or you're looking to take a product that you have and extend its market. You triggered me into going down that, that rabbit hole. But as I was thinking about it, I thought, there's a lot of data there. I think that a lot of, uh, organizations think that the value of having these groups is the optical value of people seeing them and the PR value internally and externally. But what they're missing is the actual internal value of knowing what's inside their heads and being able to utilize that. So you've worked with a lot of major corporations. I know you've worked with Unilever and a couple of other companies, understanding market and social shifts. Can you walk us through a specific example where understanding demographics or having social intelligence, that kind of internal resource groups could have surfaced directly and changed the market decision and what that translated into in terms of actual measurable business.

Bronwyn Williams: I'll speak quite broadly without naming too many names, but one of the recent studies we did, we were generating proprietary data rather than just working with data that was already existing, trying to connect the dots. And quite often that sort of data is data that lies not within a single company, but lies across multiple companies in an industry. So I know that we could talk about things like your open banking regulations, which are coming on board now, that look about that sort of data sharing across industries, not just internally, within and down and through your whole stack. And, uh, anyway, this research study we were doing was looking at the financial habits of Young people in South Africa, how they were spending their money, how they were saving it, where they were banking, who they were banking with. Looking very much at financial industries, but not looking at just one company instead of data, but data across the industry using large data sets, young people all across the country, different demographies, different regions, et cetera. And the big insight that came out of that you couldn't have had by just looking at the data inside your own house. You have to look out of it to build that bigger picture was this incredible sort of realization that every young South African that we looked at had more than one bank account with more than one different bank, and that some people had up to eight bank accounts with eight different banks. Which kind of put page to the whole idea of loyalty, which has been like the core marketing strategy of every bank in my country in probably in most countries across the world. Right. This is not a loyalty play. This is the customer is playing you, they looking again for that value. They're not buying into your relationship. And you've got marketing managers, brand managers congratulating themselves on how their loyalty schemes have been like gamified and people are bought into their brands. But it wasn't that at all. People were playing you off against your competitors and they saw you as entirely fungible, which was such an interesting realization, which just shows you exactly where the effort needs to go. The conversation is not about loyalty. The conversation was that came out of that. It's about value if you want to actually buy into that customer because that's what the customer's looking for. And by scratching on the surface and looking at your own data and your own loyalty schemes and your own points, you draw very self referential conclusions from what is actually happening without actually going out and figuring out how this fits into the bigger picture. So I'll put another lesson around, around these sorts of things is that identity data, all those points that you have around your customer, it's very faceted. I started off by saying it's often faceted and siloed. Even again, we do quite a lot of work with banking clients. It's faceted within the different components of the bank because you've separated these businesses up horizontally and vertically into these components that don't share with each other. The systems don't quite integrate. It's like it systems are legacy, patchwork upon patchwork and things don't flow through that. But it's not just what you're missing within your own kaleidoscope, those different sort of facets of the diamond that you're trying to put together into a picture. Your customer is also only sharing what they want you to know about them. And yes, of course you can scrape the web and collect some metadata about them and inferences about browsing history and all that. But again, that's all a sort of legible part of your customer, but it's still such a small part of their whole life. And figuring out what you don't know or is the sort of the futurists in our say the unknown unknowns is just as important as figuring out the known knowns, because otherwise you're making those assumptions. Based on that you have complete oversight. I think that's one of these incredible sort of dangers, ironic dangers of our current era. Whether you're looking at this from a commercial perspective or a governance perspective, it's that whole seeing like a state's idea, this idea that you can have perfect oversight because you have perfect oversight of the digital data. You just forget about all the stuff that cannot and is not captured by the system and more likely in the corporate context, not captured by your particular system. So I just love that those sorts of blind spots and the hubris that comes from believing because we've got this overwhelming amount of too much data, that we have perfect access information and the only challenges to mine through our, uh, little buckets, then you'll be able to deliver the truth. Whereas the real idea is to figure out what part of the truth do I have and how much is still hidden to me that I that cannot be digitized and flattened. That still is going to require some sort of inferior and some sort of empathy, some sort of looking in your blind spots going forward. I don't know if I explained that very well, but I always do that at this time of day. I don't know why I have these sorts of conversations at the.

Joe Santana: I think you explained it well, but I think as you were talking about that it occurs to me that there are two layers to this. Then the first layer is that within the organization you've got all these employees who literally reflect the various demographics that are out there in the world, whether it's young people or people from different backgrounds. And that is probably unknowable, but it remains an unknown because no one is tapping it. No one's thinking about it that way. No one's saying, hey, you know, all those people that are out there that work for us doing the different things that they're doing, they have data, they have information, in fact, another part of their life and their identity, they probably buy our stuff or they probably buy the other, buy the stuff we produce from somebody else that we wholesale sell it to. And the other piece that I think that you brought in, which I think is a nice dimension also is the fact that knowing that data now gives you another piece of information that you could throw into that data, data that you have. So now you have a little more known, uh, information, but another piece. And I don't know how to get that piece exactly. But actually all these other companies, especially if you're institution that sells to institutions, so you're a B2B. These other companies have their own employee groups who also have their own data that is probably useful to you as well because now you've got a bigger pool. You've got a pool of data from um, your internal employees who somewhat reflect some of your customer base that's out there. And you have data also on the employee groups that are inside. Some of the people that are maybe intermediaries in your value chain or they're buying your products or your services and then selling them to someone else or whatever. But there is uh, value to also collecting that data as well. Although I have no idea at this point how you would collect that. But I could see that. And there would still be some unknowns obviously, right? There would still be some unknowns. But I think if I were to net it out, what I'm getting out of this is that when you're trying to make these decisions, there's going to be things that are known to you that knowable to you, that you can bring in, and then there are things that are unknowable that you cannot bring in. But unfortunately there are a lot of things that are knowable that people aren't collecting, so they remain unknown. Uh, I don't know if I'm confusing our listeners any more than I'm enlightening them, but I think that's what I'm getting out of this, is that the more data that you collect about the things that you can know about the people in your company who are uh, these staff networks or ERG groups and combine that with some of the formal data that you have and the more you know about the thinking and the perspectives of people outside your organization, however you capture that data, the more you expand that universe of what's known and you make better decisions. And let's say, for example, if you're running a loyalty program like what you were talking about before, you may want to, you may want to re engineer that in light of that information because it's obviously not working as effectively as you think it is if everybody's out there with eight different banks. So another thing that I've read that you've talked about is you've publicly framed the employer employee relationship as a value exchange rather than time based agreement. Now for ERG leaders that are trying to make a financial case to a CFO or a COO and say, hey, this is our value to the organization, this information that we have in our heads in addition to the work that we do for you in our areas of expertise, how do they translate that framing into hard metrics or something beyond engagement scores that quantifies what their group is actually contributing to the organization's performance?

Bronwyn Williams: That's a very hard question. And I think that GE groups are going to have to do is collect the data. But we can tell you like where to look for this. And that is the fact that honestly, I know we've had prior conversations, Joe, about this, but essentially the way the cheese is moved in our current economy, it is that as our economy has become more digitized and more automated and more ironically efficient, we come closer, of course, the liminal curve, we're never going to quite get there, but we come closer, uh, and closer to the so perfect economy we're in. A perfectly, in an economy in complete equilibrium has no profit in it. This is the terrible point, right? An economist will tell you this. This is what they teach you. The world isn't perfect. There's inefficiencies and that's why there's profit on this table, right? A perfectly efficient market has no profit in it. And I know that's an extreme case, but that's what we tend towards. The more we globalize, the more we liberalize, the more free our labor, our money, our markets are. And of course that those are some of the reasons why our markets become less free. Sometimes we have wars in the Middle east just because people try to claw back their profits when they start to realize that perfect efficiency means a whole lot of those profits that we thought we were earning get stripped out, but on a more kind of microcosm way of looking at it. We just look at an industry, whatever industry we in. More competitive our uh, industry is, the more open that data sharing is, the more automated our industries are, the more dependent they are on cloud based software. And the more we embrace efficiency tools, the less our profitability and our value lies in our efficiency and the more our profitability relies, ironically on our inefficiencies. And this is uh, where People come in because people are less efficient than machines on linear tasks. This is what we've done throughout history. You can replace any task as long as you can define the task. We can find an automated way to do it more efficiently. People are inefficient, and yet people are resilient. Even just look at sort of evolutionary biology. If we're very inefficient, we walk funny, we don't look like the other mammals. We're inefficient, we expensive to run, we have high maintenance costs, we are inefficient, and yet we are evolutionary winners in the biological sense. In the same sense, we fall into these traps in trying to optimize and run our businesses. Like I talk about the sort of seeing, like estate flattening everything to things, to bits and bytes be optimized that can be automated. Not understanding that makes us that much more at risk and that much less resilient and ultimately that much less valuable. Because value, as you were saying, comes from delighting another human being. Ultimately, somewhere along the line, somewhere down the chain, even if you are very distributed in a very financialized part of the economy, somewhere down the line, your business exists because your business is part of a supply chain that is so serving somebody's need. And people, of course, are very good at solving each other's needs. We're also good at very good at creating new needs for each other, new wants and new desires and new problems to solve. But ultimately, as the economy becomes more efficient, becomes more effective, becomes more productive, your value starts to lie in your, what I can quote, unquote, call your inefficiencies. But really that's among your people. These are among the slow relationships that are built between people that are buying from your business and people that are inside your business. That's where loyalty lies. And I like that sort of loyalty analogy that I came up with because that comes through here. We know people aren't loyal to businesses, people aren't loyal to brands, people are loyal to themselves and they're loyal to other people. Uh, a very good friend of mine, John Salt from the foundation in the uk, they also do amazing research on customer loyalty and customer experience. And John will tell you straight up, customers are not loyal to businesses, but they are loyal to another person, to the person they speak to on the phone, to the person they see in the shop, to the person that they have a relationship. The loyalty follows the person, which is inefficient and annoying, of course, to accompany to shareholders, to boards, to the cfo but ultimately that's where your resilience lies. Because let's be frank, if you are operating again at maximum efficiency in an automated technological world, that means you're quite replaceable to the next company down the street. Because if the only difference between you and your competitor is compute, when you're the only difference between you'll be here being profitable today and being redundant tomorrow is how deep your shareholders pockets are. Investors pockets are, which is not something that is defensible. It's not sustainable. Sustainability comes only from delivering value in a way that is deeper, more connected and more ultimately human than the next guy. That's where real loyalty lies. That's where resilience lies. Everything else is a cheap trick and a sort of a, uh, race to the bottom. It's effectively competing on price, competing on compute, competing on efficiency. Very similar thing. Because it is just a very brittle transactional transaction. Whereas the real value is in those transformational experiences from the customer to the company. But also critically, which is closer to your whole point of view is those transformational rather than transactional relationships within organizations. Because I was just speaking about how brittle consumer relationships are to businesses. Customers don't love your business. They love the people that either relates to them being part of that business or the people they relate to within that business. Same with talent and employees. If your relationship with your team, with your employees is based purely on transaction, on uh, a time versus money exchange, then that employee is only loyal to you as long as you can pay them more than the next guy. Which you've already established is a race to the bottom. The only way to turn that around in a fair, not exploitative way is to make sure the relationships you have within your teams are holistically transformational enough that there really is an intrinsic benefit to being part of this team that fulfills a need more than just the maximum amount of paycheck that you can pay today. I know that sounds very altruistic, but this is the problem. We have problems on both sides when it comes to employee relationships at the moment. On the one hand, there's no trust between anyone. Employees don't trust, employers don't trust employees. The relationship becomes very brittle. That means on the one hand, talent doesn't want to work with companies. The best talent, the people that actually can transform your organization, don't want to work with you because they don't want to be treated just like a uh, commodity. Right? And you have to break that sort of dynamic, that vicious cycle. The only way to do that is to Shift into transformational gear, which again comes back to understanding that the value comes from those intrinsic relationships within your organization and the intrinsic relationships between the individuals in your organization and your customers. That's where value ultimately resides. As much as we try and automate and optimize it away. Honestly, some industries have been very effective at stripping value out of the entire industry. Like the private banking sector does spring to mind. No one's playing the value game anymore. But that to me just seems like an opportunity for someone else to start up in the space where value has been entirely stripped away by the accountants and the technologists. That's a very, uh, great place to start building your next sort of layer of competitive advantage. And again, I know that is quite abstract, but this is the challenge for teams who are trying to defend their actual value. Ultimately, it's a very strong case. We are the only value that you really have. Everything else is replaceable. Everything else is just a machine part away. We work together are the only thing that has lasting value.

Joe Santana: There's so much to unpack there that I'm not even going to try to unpack all of it. But I will say a couple of things that I got out of this are that one, that the value of our humanity generating new wants and needs is what keeps everything going. So while, while you have one group of people that are trying to bring everything into equilibrium, um, at which point everything is commoditized and you called it the race to the bottom right, and profit begins to evaporate. It's these new emerging needs that people have. As new tools become available, new things become available that continue to drive economic growth. In the military, they always talk about how soldiers don't fight actually for a country or a flag. They literally fight for the person to their right, to their left, in front of them and behind them. And this is also true in terms of business, that people are motivated in teams to work well together when they have a connection with the other human that's in front, behind, and to the left and right of them. And that clients, the ultimate client, whoever that end consumer is, who created the need for which that product exists. And that whole value chain, from a producer to a wholesaler, to a retailer, to an ultimate consumer, that it's that need at the end of that chain that drives everything. And that understanding that need and understanding people who are generating those needs is actually the key to all competitive advantage. I think that. I think competitive advantage in market, competitive advantage for talent, competitive advantage for everything. And that all these other efforts are People then once they identify a need, trying to create the perfect mousetrap to get to that need faster than anybody else. But eventually everybody will get there. That brings you to equilibrium. Yeah, that brings you to equilibrium. Equilibrium takes out the profit. And it's only when new needs arise. So again, it goes back to understanding the people in your organization and, and the people around you, your clients and so forth, getting inside their heads and understanding these emerging needs. That keeps you and your organization ahead of that game of that race. So really fascinating. Okay, so what did we learn from the first half of our discussion with Bronwyn? 1. Stop acting as event teams and start positioning yourself as a source of market and workforce intelligence. You and the people in your network often understand customer behavior, emerging needs, employee experience, and cultural blind spots way better than your executives or HR do. 2. Collect and Organize your group's insights in ways leaders can use. Stories alone are not enough. Identify patterns, themes, examples with data that can help decision makers and then communicate that to them. 3. You and your members often represent different departments that house siloed information. These are valuable insights that sit scattered across your different departments in the organization. They include customer data, employee experience data, and frontline observations that nobody links together into usable business pictures. That is something you and your group can do because you and your members are part of all these different departments. And you can add your unique perspectives to that data as well.

Bronwyn Williams: 4.

Joe Santana: Remember that despite what the company wishes and the rhetoric, customers are not loyal to brands and employees are not loyal to companies. Customers are loyal to the value they receive from people who understand them. People are loyal to team members they feel connected to. You can help your organization in a huge way by helping them, um, to understand what your community's value in a business partner or an employer before the competitors figure it out first. 5. Build your influence by becoming known as the one helping your organization identify these blind spots. Remember, the biggest business risks are not the things that leaders know. They're actually the things that leaders assume they understand, but actually do not know. Helping your leaders get past those blind spots is a way of driving value and growing influence. And finally, six, help your company improve its human connection to the people in your community as a competitive advantage. As technology makes products and services easier to copy, organizations increasingly win only through trust, empathy, relationship and understanding of evolving human wants and needs. And you sit on a treasure trove of data on how to continue winning that trust with your community. Leverage that. In the first half of our discussion with Bronwyn, we learned that the most valuable thing your ERG has to offer your business is helping the organization's leaders to better understand people people working in their companies and comprising their markets, uncovering blind spots and translating human insight into smarter market and workforce decisions. In the second half of our discussion, we're going to explore how ERG leaders can use futures thinking, scenario planning and a contribution based mindset to help both organizations and their members stay valuable in an increasingly AI driven economy. All that and more when we come back. But first this I'll see you on the other side. Are you an ERG group or committee chair struggling to balance your ERG activities with your day job responsibilities? Well, you're not alone. There are hundreds of thousands of passionate ERG leads all around the world that find themselves in the same boat. The only solution found by many is to give up lunch hours and personal time with family and friends. But there is a better way. And that better way is to master the powerful skills that enable you to 1 set realistic and achievable compelling goals and priorities 2 distribute the workload by effectively delegating tasks and responsibilities to others 3 communicate in a way that increases your impact with less time and effort on your Part 4 Secure the full and active support of executive sponsors and other senior business leaders and five Fit your ERG leadership work into a reasonable set of time boundaries. And that and more is exactly what tens of thousands of your colleagues have learned to do effortlessly by participating in supercharge Workshops. Supercharge Workshops was developed by us along the same easy and powerful how to framework found in our popular Supercharger ERGS book. The modular, customizable programs are loaded with fun exercises and tools that will immediately give you back hours of time each day while increasing your ability to achieve high impact and measurable results in both your ERG work and your job. For more details on how you can schedule a supercharged workshop session in your organization, go to superchargeworkshops.com that's HTTPs://forward/supercharge workshops One word with no space is dot com, so don't suffer silently. Take that first step towards stopping your struggle today. Check out supercharge Workshops. Another thing is in your work on Africa's economy, you talk about economic circularity and you argue that the continent's biggest opportunities are essentially a problem of flow, getting capital, talent and innovation to move efficiently through that system. How does that same kind of circulatory logic apply inside, let's say, a corporation? Uh, and what does it tell us about where employee resource groups should be plugged into the business's architecture to help generate measurable returns within that circulatory system.

Bronwyn Williams: Uh, I can answer that directly. I recently wrote a book called how to survive the, uh, AI Apocalypse, A Guide for Solutionists, along with my amazing business and writing partner, Sharon Pierce. A little plug there. But the whole crux of that book culminates in what we call the solutionist model, which is a cycle. It's a cyclical wheel which talks about the wheel of value creation for teams. And that wheel is very sensitive. Uh, the book is all about AI and moving forward and digitalizing and operationalizing, all of that. But the wheel starts actually with empathizing, with understanding the person whose needs you are solving. And that applies both to understanding the need of the end customer that you are selling to, but also understanding the internal needs. Because sometimes you have an internal client. That's your role within an organization. You. There's a support function to support someone else, but understanding the person that you ultimately are serving, that you exist to create value to. And then, of course, figuring out what that problem is and then using data to validate sets, and then, of course, doing all the operational kind of things in order to make sure that's actually implemented. But the wheel starts again. It starts. It always comes back to that sort of empathizing perspective. Like that understanding where the need is now, because, as you say, the need is the cheese. The cheese keeps moving. It has to keep moving. If it stayed in one place, the game would be very boring. The game would be sold and there would be no profit for everyone. It will be very equal, but not very fun. And the game of business is, of course, always about, as you say, creating new needs and then solving them in new creative ways. So that empathizing. But is the bit you always come back to in the eight steps of the model, just figuring out where is the cheese moved or where do we need to move the cheese to next? And that's, of course, where it comes back. And that's very human. It's a very human thing to want to need, to desire to have something that we want and to figure out what that is and to address that in a way that that shows care, that shows that you value that person is the crux of business. Right? This is what business always was. It was seeing a need and solving it, or creating a need cynically, then solving it. So it's either the protection racket or it's the kind of the hero sort of journey. So you can decide which role you want to play. You can play the hero's journey or you can play the protection racket mafia kind of game, but either way, that's how business is played. And it comes back to that. It's a continual cyclical process of seeing what needs people have and then figuring out how to solve it in a way that's efficient, it's backed up by data, and it's validated. This also comes back. I was going to make this sort of point around more diverse teams around. Teams around the sort of, the very personal side of it. And one of the things we talk about in that book is how diversity has been looked at so wrong by so many organizations who have seen it very cynically as a shortcut to shareholder value. And this is why these programs become quite brittle. Like your DI programs become very brittle when they are sold to boards as uh, accelerants to shareholder value. Right? Becomes super brittle because now as soon as your profits aren't increasing, when you've invested in your diversity and you've invested in your sort of enrichments of your employee pool, then you throw the program away with the bathwater instead of really understanding the deep diversity. That real perspective is not about that superficial box ticking, making sure it looks good on brochures or short term results. Rather it's about longer term resilience, which doesn't necessarily show up in a neat line for line on the chart shareholder value, but rather it's that insurance policy against, not for losing out or missing out on where the cheese is moving or where the customer is moving. Like we say, the sort of diversity that works for organizations is when you are reflecting, when your employee base reflects your customer base, when they are, as you say, consuming what you produce or at least empathizing with the people who, who are consuming with what you produce. This was like the whole Henry Ford model, right? Make sure that your workers can afford the sorts of products you produce, but not just afford that. Your workers are sort of people that wanted the sorts of things that you were producing. They were reflective of your target market. You're not alienated from it. You're with the people. And like how you build your teams to either reflect your real market that you're working with in an empathetic way, a real way, not just a superficial way, is very different to coming in like a consultant or like a politician looking at people you don't fully understand and trying to impose solutions upon people very different, having sort of organic solutions that are born out of empathy, which often comes from being reflective. The people working with the people you serving, being reflective of the people that you serve, they connected to them, not disconnected. It's a much less paternalistic arrangement and relationship with your target audience. And the way quite often we see business is being very disconnected from the people and we see the people that we are there to serve serve as being consumers or targets and we use those sorts of languages instead of understanding that we are actually there to serve them. And again, the parallels between politics and business should be quite obvious, that the best sort of politicians understand very much that they are there to serve. That's what their whole job title is. We also lose this in business. We forget that we are there to serve customers and we start to think that we there to extract value from a target market market instead of provide value and provide service to someone. That's a healthy, sustainable relationship. All of human societies are based on the quid pro quo, right? The giving and the taking, the cycles. Once again, when businesses lose that mindset and see they turn into that sort of extricative mindset, that's again a race to a bottom on a long enough timescale. Of course, cynically you can win doing that in the short term, but who really wants to be part of playing that game? And that comes back full circle to like, how do you retain the best talent? You retain the best talent that develops that empathetic skill and develops those virtuous cycles with your customer base by providing sorts of work opportunities that allow people to get that real transformative benefit from the work they do. And you get real transformative benefit from the work you do when you know, you engaged in a process that actually delivering value to someone rather than just in a cynical job of extracting value from a system in a kind of a dead end game. This is why we've got so much cynicism about work and why we wonder why young people don't want to work with us because they've figured out the game that the company that might be trying to extract from the target market is also extracting from you. But I'm also the target market, right? So of course these sort of trust based cycles, we have to reverse them if we want to play a longer, more sustainable, more fruitful kind of a game. And I'm not naive, it's not like I don't know that you can absolutely win by cheating on all of those score points, but you could only win as long as somebody else is not doing what you're doing, right? If everybody else was doing what you're doing, again, we back to that perfect equilibrium, which is no fun for anyone.

Joe Santana: It makes perfect sense. And again, this fits in with that theme of that what humans offer has like an evergreen value because we're always creating new needs. We always have to be on top of how those needs are evolving. We have to understand to serve a market what that market wants. And that's constantly changing. And the source of that change is people. And the people in our organization probably understand those changes better than anybody else because they're experiencing them. And very likely because most of the people that work in the organization are more reflective in terms of population, demographics, age and so forth, of the people that are buying things, than the senior leaders who tend to be living in a different experience. Yeah, it's a different lifestyle. So I think that value, as I said before, is evergreen in terms of what these groups can offer. It's uh, not. Once we give them all this data, then we have nothing more to give. No, you'll have more to give because life will continue to march on and evolve. You'll continue to change. And you better believe that as you're changing, the world around you is also going through changes in terms of what they want and what they value. In your work. You're, you're right at that intersection of, uh, fintech, alternative economic models, emerging markets, areas where demographic inclusion is not optional. It's not, as you said before, just tick the box to make sure that we have five of these, two of these and four of those. But it's a revenue model actually, to be able to tap into, uh, all those differences and in different types of, of needs and values that continue to emerge. So what's the single most transferable lesson from all of these different markets? That a corporate erg leader in North America, Europe, Africa, anywhere in the world could apply right now to make their work show up in that corporation's P

Bronwyn Williams: and L. I'm going to come back to what I was saying earlier. I know it sounds quite cheesy, but there's basically those two points, and that is that people want demonstrable value and they want to be valued. Now the demonstrable value question is a lot easier for most organizations because that's what your marketing department is for. I can just show you what the benefits of your justify why it's better in the next guy. But people also want to feel valued. Like this is where relationships become more sticky and less brittle. Again, the relationship of your team members within your team, but also your relationship between your customer and your business. And you do have a Customer. I think that's the other thing that I like to remind everyone here in this equation is that especially when you're working in very profitable, very disconnected from reality, I feel like the thrice abstracted economy you work in, like finance, in a data company, are you so disconnected from the actual ground real economy because you're like working in the digitized, financialized, totally extracted part of the world, but ultimately you do actually have a customer. When you scratch under the surface and you unpack all those onion rings, there is actually someone that has to choose to work with you. Unless you work in like a uh, totalitarian country that everything is a state owned monopoly. But we're not talking about that here, you and me, we talking about competing in a competitive or at least somewhat if not entirely free, but at least in a competitive space, right? And there is, there's someone that's got to choose to work with you or not to purchase your product or not. And what people need in order to have that is am I getting value? And um, am I being valued? Those are like the two most basic things and we forget them all the time because especially that latter part. Am M I being valued? It doesn't show up on balance sheets, but oh boy, it really does. When people stop feeling that you're going to see the hole. You might not see how the hole got there, but the hole is going to show up on your accounts. When those equations are no longer working for people, you no longer have work to do. And the unfortunate thing in our current world, because it is so disconnected and virtualized and abstracted, is it often takes quite a long time for that other shoe to land. Once you've pulled up, once you've reduced the value, once you stop valuing your customers. All small businesses get this. Incidentally, if you're a startup, you know this from day one. Even if you're actual, the person you're trying to impress is just the vc. There's still someone you have to impress and demonstrate valuable, right? And it's a real person you got to impress. We forget about it. Unfortunately, it takes quite a long time for that lag effect to catch up. So in the short term it seems like it's working. We all know the transition you start from M. Your, your entrepreneur, who cares about the customer, sees a problem, solves the problem, goes out and does it. He's gradually replaced by the accountant and the accountant keeps the cow going for a bit and then the accountant is replaced by a management consultant and they don't care about any of this. And then very quickly everything just turns into milking that cash cow and selling it for part. Right. This is the general life cycle of a business. You can extend that life cycle and get more value out of the cow. You can get more milk out of the cow, more moo for less moo. If you are focusing on making sure people feel valued and understand that they are getting value for from them. And I think that getting value part that was we were better at in the world of business. But as we've shifted to this new era of grievance and inequality and all the rest of it, that people are starting to feel people are asking those questions harder. So in scarce at times, people look more for the am I getting good value? In more prosperous times, people tend to demand more of value. Me, I'm important. So it always, uh, go in swings and roundabouts, but ultimately you need both, both those levers up in the air to keep things going for longer, if that's what you want. Otherwise, selling the car for parts is always an option. There's a great market for steak and leather.

Joe Santana: I love. I'm going to find a way to use that cow analogy. Somewhere along the line, it does bring it home in a visceral way. One of the things, the other things that you've commented on publicly is on AI as a force that is fundamentally redefining what labor and value creation means. ERG leaders and technically intensive organizations are watching AI displace roles that are disproportionately held by communities that they represent. So they're seeing their friends m going away and being picked up by a system. What is a proactive business strategy? Not a defensive HR response, but a really proactive business strategy that turns that risk into a competitive advantage. And how do ERG leaders position themselves to help to drive that, uh, within their own community? Because a lot of them, they really, these are really passionate people that, to your point, they're people who care about other people and they care about other people who are facing their plight, people who are similar to them and even others beyond that. And that's a real concern for them. What are some of the things that they can do there to help those communities and, um, to position themselves to drive that.

Bronwyn Williams: Okay, so this is not going to be a popular point, but I think it is probably one of the most important ones we'll cover today. And that is that the most important thing you can do if you do care about people and want to protect people and want people to have good relationships and get devalued from M with the organizations they work with is to stop hanging on to jobs. I think the second chapter in our book was like, kill your jobs, which sounds very harsh. But as long as we're holding on to jobs, we are basically reducing. And we now I'm speaking from the employee perspective or from the worker perspective, we are limiting our bargaining value. I don't need to tell you that if you're working in a white collar, financialized, digitized fire industry, the chances of you being protected by a union are very slim. That's not it. You have to negotiate based on value. And negotiating around the units of exchange known as the job limits you in so many ways. The bargaining power goes all the way to the organization who can replace you, not only by technology like you've spoken about, but also, quite frankly, by workers living in countries with weaker economies like my own. So there's constantly that sort of albatross hung over your head. You are replaceable. And, uh, you are replaceable because your worth has been determined by this job, this unit of work, which is very artificial and comes with a whole lot of attachments to it, like restrictions on your time, restrictions on your trade, where you have to work when you have to work work, which limits again, your negotiating ability to negotiate from a position of value. And we're not there yet. We have raised our children, we have trained our university graduates, we have coached our, uh, careers all around the job as a unit. Whereas the unit needs to shift, as we argue in our book, to this unit of contribution. And that's a whole different bargaining field. And as the whole conversation we've had today, hopefully some of these dots are connecting. The contribution that you bring with your ability to empathize, to connect deeply with the, uh, person who's supposed to care about your organization is the only source of value for a company. And will it take companies a bit of time to catch up to this? Absolutely. But at the same time, top talent is already noticing I'm not going to negotiate my future based on the unit of account known as a job. I'm going to negotiate in my future based on the unit of account known as a individual contributor relationship on a contracting relationship on a fractional share of me across different places relationship, which again is actually quite good for the data thing. Imagine you've got all these fractional ICs that are able to connect dots between other companies within your industry and across your industry and across your supply chain. So imagine how much more valuable that person is to the organization and how Much more power that puts back into the hands of the worker. Having looked at this for many different ways around, I don't think that there is a way for the white collar worker. I use that term because we don't really have a better one. I know it's not the greatest, but this idea of the desk worker, knowledge worker, uh, to reclaim power from organizations in a hyper competitive, hyper globalized world. As long as we are negotiating around a job instead of negotiating around value. And that of course comes with a whole lot of different trade offs in terms of security, in terms of freedom. But again the data is starting to show that individual contributors and contractors over time for basically like the first time, like we had that tipping point where you started having people who hadn't graduated college last year in the US suddenly less unemployed than ones that had. The other sort of tipping point is those individual contributors, they're getting greater year on year salary increases than your job based employees. So this doesn't message does not land well with anyone. The last time I gave this message at a conference, I had some students come literally in tears to me afterwards saying I've been told my whole life I need to get a job, I've got a job. And now uh, my job has been taken by machines. I'm like, I'm sorry, your job is going to be taken by machines. There's nothing you can do about it. You can stand here and cry or you can understand, the cheese is moved. The way to be valued is to figure out your value contribution and negotiate on your own terms. As long as you're still begging for a job, you're wasting time. You're young. Actually it's best, it's better for you. You're young, you're at the beginning of your career, you can adjust. Now it's a bit different people that have been in business for a longer time. But there the kind thing to do is to, if you are in the position of mentoring other people, working with other people, leading groups and teams, pushing for diversity programs, is to insist on mentorship and training. Not training to work with machines within an organization, but rather training to transition into individual contributor roles, negotiate on those terms. I know, um, maybe I'm not being answering the question in the way anyone wants to hear this, but that's what people need right now. People need to be equipped to go out into the ocean. And you need to be equipped as organizations to let go of your best talents in order to retain your best talent. And your best talent needs to know how to value themselves in order to be valued by the companies they want to work with. So I've uh, sketched out that you are valuable nonetheless. Your job is at risk nonetheless. That's not necessarily bad news. Once you embrace the fact that the way value is being distributed, who is ending up with more cheese on their plate? It has shifted and it's shifted to people who are able to articulate the value contribution that they bring. And hopefully those sorts of models that I've sketched out with my ability to emphasize, to identify problems, resolve problems, those are the sorts of things that will help you negotiate that going forward. And I think that goes for teams too. There's no reason why it has to be an individual contributor. It could be a group contribution or teamwork even heard today. I know I was making fun of it, but I understand why people think it's a, uh, good idea. Group PhDs Group, individual contributors sort of like trading together as a team, as a multi headed creature that's able to empathize in multiple different directions by working as a group and as a team. These are all very interesting sorts of things to look at. But value has shifted. The units known as the job is a, um, dwindling species and increasingly less valuable species of value going forward. Is it undervalued? This is the way deprofessionalization is taking place with AI as opposed to job losses outright. The deprofessionalization of careers that used to pay well, that used to have high status, being undermined. The status and the value. That's because of the way we've packaged skills and human value into jobs and that can be unpacked and repackaged in ways that are hopefully more valuable to both parties. Because I'm a big believer that the best thing of capitalism and trade is when you and I get to trade together and we both get to uh, walk away feeling like we got a good deal. Capitalism is the only way we can get that sort of free lunch. That's only if we're trading fairly. People don't believe me when I say this. People rail against capitalism because so many of our trades are unfair. They negotiate from different places. They negotiated ran to dollar, which is not a fair trade. They negotiated employer to employee, which is not a bad trade. But if we were trading fairly, JOE brianwyn we could trade. We could both walk away better off by exchanging our talents, exchanging our services, exchanging our value. It is possible. But we have to understand what is stopping us from being able to negotiate from uh, those playing fields. And this comes Back to the beginning of our conversation that people that are in those roles that are in those departments, your job is to figure out your value, to quantify your value, to start collecting that data, start building that case as to where your value lives, to making it clear so that you have a place to negotiate from.

Joe Santana: In essence, the value of people is actually increasing in this society because it's the only thing that creates more value. But the value of the construct called the job that was created years ago in order to create little pockets of units that perform specific tasks, that's going away because essentially as organizations became larger and more complex, they became machines, as it were. And then the jobs was literally turning the roles that people had within those companies that were machines into cogs of the machine. As AI does more of what was considered the uh, jobs, then human value doesn't go away, but it just needs to be presented, packaged and delivered in a lot of different ways. And that people who are in these employee resource groups, who in part not only are trying to help the company, but they're trying to help their members as well, that one way to help their members is to help them identify what is your core value, what is our core value as either a group or as an individual, or within different types of areas of interest and so forth, because that is where the future is heading. Another question I have for you is you use future scenario planning as a core advisory tool. Can you give ERG leaders a practical condensed version of how to run those types of scenario exercises with their executive sponsors and the organization, something that they could execute and let's say a half day session that makes the cost of ignoring demographic market shifts visible in financial terms. Any advice on how they could do like the uh, mini version of a future scenario planning?

Bronwyn Williams: Um, and I could speak to that broadly more specifically, uh, contact me, I can give you some workshop templates and you can go through it, because to unpack all the jargon that goes along with that, we'll just make your eyes glaze over. It's not that complicated, it's not that deep. But essentially the whole point of scenario planning is to consider and then take the first steps towards preparing for multiple possible future eventualities. So if you want to take the case of uh, an employee or a team that is concerned about their future and organization, some of those scenarios could be scenario we continue on trying to defend our jobs, what does that end up to? Or do we negotiate with management to transition into an ah, individual or group contributor role? How would we sketch that out and you would extrapolate, of course, then asking your questions, if. Then what? Then now what now if that on you go to as many sort of degrees as you can, unpacking the different chains, the different potential uncertainties, the unanswered questions, things you can't know whether it's going to land this way or that way, but you'd explore the different parts as far as you can and of course then try and figure out some of the responses that you could have if the different parts start to emerge. So scenarios are as simple as telling a story about a potential future, but more than one. That's the idea. Instead of predicting the base case scenario, which is what an economist would typically do, you say, what are multiple different possibilities? What could those possibilities look like? And how could I be prepared for each of those possibilities? So it is a bit of a how long is a piece of string exercise? Because you could do 100 different scenarios because there are infinite possibilities ahead, but that would largely waste your time because you spend too much time speculating across too large a set of possibilities for it to be practically useful for you. So instead, rather we usually start with a set identifying questions that are unanswered or what we call uncertainties. What could happen if this happens? Could it go this way or that way, this way, that way or this way or that other way? For maybe it's three or four examples, particularly burning questions about what's ahead. Typical things could be things like if a merger or acquisition takes place, if a particular political leader takes power, because it could go either way, you don't have control over the outcome, but you need to consider it and then explore how you could prepare for it. There's multiple different options you can do. I've got quite a short three hour process that can take you from micro scenarios right through to what we call minimum viable strategies, which are basically your first three steps come Monday, should any of the potential scenarios you've discussed unfold, which is quite a fast track process, but honestly, usually strategic foresight is quite a long slow process that takes place over many months that starts with signal scanning and analysis of trends, and then explores uncertainty scenarios, workshops with multiple stakeholders. But it's in time intensive. Not everyone has time to do this. You can, as you said in a half day, come in with questions and come away feeling a little bit more prepared for the different uncertainties ahead. One overarching piece of advice there would be technology can fast track this. In fact, if you want to do it even faster, you could just go, uh, to Claude or Gemini or whatever program you like to muck around with in the AI space and say, give me 10 scenarios for the future and tell me what I should do about each of them. Um, and the prompt will just give it to you. And you can just shove that onto your shelf and never look at it again. And congratulate yourself that you've done scenario planning, but I would encourage you not to do that. My contention is, if you're using AI to think about the future, don't bother. Rather just read some science fiction. You'll have a lot more fun and probably get more value out of it. Do it, don't do it. Like Jorda said, don't do. Try, don't try, do it, don't do it. But if you got to do it. The whole point of foresight is to use your brain to think about what you want and what you don't want, which no machine can tell you.

Joe Santana: So, Bronwyn, um, looking across your advisory work with corporations, governments, international organizations, what are some of the most common strategic mistakes that you see organizations make when they try to convert demographic insight into business capability?

Bronwyn Williams: I think it comes back to what he was saying in the beginning. The mistakes come from looking at, uh, from thinking all the answers lie in the data and they can't. If all the answers were in the data, everybody would have the answers. We all have access to, uh, the data. We all have access to the AI chatbots, We all have access to all the stuff. So where, when you look back and you say, oh, this has failed, or the data that I've got has failed, or the teams that haven't brought me the right insight, it's probably because your management team hasn't really looked between the data into the cracks where the actual story lies. They haven't listened to the human part. I think it was like Jeff Bezos, who said, of course, that when there is a difference between the data and the anecdote, your data is probably wrong, or the data is not necessarily wrong, but it's looking at the wrong thing. Or it's the little piece of the story that we discount because the data said something else. But the data, as we said at the beginning, you go back to Johari's window. Known. Knowns unknown. Knowns known. Unknowns unknown. Uh, unknown. There's a whole space there. You could be wrong, right? But data is not everything. It is something. It is a piece of the picture. And when you look back in hindsight and say, oh, I was given wrong information, that's why I made the wrong decision or you made the wrong decision because you try to make, you try to make a decision from a place of 100% confidence, which was impossible all along. So I think we miss out on the stories and we don't listen to the things that don't fit in neatly m into our data sets and that's a very common sense stake. So we try and fit the anecdote into the data rather than understanding. The outlier is where the story lies. The outlier is where we should follow, where we should figure out why that doesn't fit in my set, not say flatten it because it doesn't fit the model. We're not being master's students here. We're going to be a bit more, we're going to take ourselves a bit more seriously rather than trying to flatten that p brow.

Joe Santana: How can our listeners reach you for more information or some of the. You, uh, talked about some tools that you might be able to share. Where can I reach you?

Bronwyn Williams: It's probably easiest just to find me on social media. You can find me on LinkedIn forward slash. Brianwan Williams I'm very old so I've got my whole name there. Otherwise my website is fluxtrends f l u x t r e n d s.com so as in flux capacitor and trends. So you can take a look at what we do there.

Joe Santana: Bronwyn Williams is a strategic forecast advisor at uh, undp. Thank you again for joining us today on ERG Power Talk.

Bronwyn Williams: Bronwyn thank you.

Joe Santana: Okay, so what did we Learn from the second half of our discussion with Bronwyn? 1. Start every conversation in your group with the customer or employee need you are helping to solve. Like larger organizations organizations, your efforts lose relevance when they focus more on how to get more out of people than on first understanding what they want and need. 2. Stop framing your inclusion work as a short term tactic. The real value of different perspectives is that they help organizations continually avoid blind spots, adapt faster and stay connected to changing markets and people over time. This is not a one and done activity. It is a continuous process as the world evolves and human needs and wants change. 3. To help your members establish their individual value to the organization. Help them identify and articulate their core value contributions beyond just job titles. AI is going to continue to automate tasks and eliminate jobs. But people who can solve emerging emerging problems across a set of domains, build trust and understand evolving human needs will remain highly valuable. The company that thinks it is in the eyeglasses business may survive for a while, but the company that understands that it's in the vision improvement business has a much longer future ahead. Likewise, the person who defines themselves by a job title becomes vulnerable when that job changes or is eliminated, whereas the person who defines themselves by the value they create stays relevant. 4. Encourage your members to build broad, portable skills and relationships inside and outside the company that increase their influence beyond a single role. The future belongs to contributors who can clearly explain the value they create across teams, companies, industries and markets. 5. Run simple future scenario exercises with your members the surface where demographic and market shifts will affect them and your company, and where these will land before they become urgent problems. Your goal in these exercises is never to predict the future. Your goal is to prepare, to steer things in your favor regardless of which of the different potential futures tend to manifest, and to do so as best you can. And finally, six Remember to pay attention to unusual stories, new perspectives, things that don't fit neatly into your company's dashboards or ideas. The strongest future market and opportunity signals for you, your group members, and your company are often found in new experiences, new frustrations, and new behaviors that don't fit into anyone's existence models. One of the biggest mistakes organizations make is believing that their best market intelligence and employee experience knowledge sits inside these dashboards and surveys while ignoring the people sitting inside their own company. I've seen ERGs treated like social committees and directed to spend months planning the next cultural or Heritage Month celebration, while the organization spends millions on outside consultants trying to understand customers and its workforce in ways that those ERG members already reflect and understand. In fact, in the United States alone, organizations spend well over $400 billion annually on management consulting, market intelligence, customer segmentation, and related activity services to better understand markets, customers, workforce trends, and competitive opportunities. Plus, in addition to all that, they spend an estimated additional 40 billion annually on HR consulting, employee engagement, workplace culture, and employee experiences services. So you don't need to sell your company on the idea that understanding the human wants and needs that drive their markets or engage your employees is important. They already know that, as evidenced by the huge amount of monies they're so spending on UM consultants. What you need to show them is that you're the ones who have the information they want. So start collecting what your members already know about your current and future markets and workforce and communicate that in business language that executives can act on. Do that and your value and that of your members will instantly skyrocket. Thank you for tuning in to ERG Power Talk. If you enjoyed and got value out of this program. Please like us, uh, and leave a favorable review at your podcast provider's site. Also, invite others to listen to the show. By the way, contact me if you're looking for an ERG Symposium keynote or a leader for your strategy workshop, New Chair Onboarding and or ERG Bootcamp. I can run these for you either in person person or in a virtual setting. Also, for more great ideas and tips for your ergs, get my books Supercharge youe ERG's 18 tips to power up your ERG BRG Strategy and the New DEI and ERG Frontier how you and your efforts can rise and thrive in the new world of constant disruption. Both of them available on Amazon. Com. I'm Joe Santana. Thanks again for tuning in.