#75 Sanna Suvanto-Harsaae - Posti's IPO, why CEOs fail, strategy mistakes, AI’s real impact

Speaker A: The growth pod is brought to you by Genero, a leading growth agency in the Nordics. We interview marketing experts, business leaders and entrepreneurs to uncover the stories and strategies behind profitable growth.

Speaker B: Sure.

Speaker A: Good to go. Sanna, welcome back to the podcast. Third time's the charm.

Speaker B: Amazing. Amazing. You keep calling me bad.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Back on that M1.

Speaker A: Um, yeah, of course you're uh, one of our most popular guests. And the only bad thing is, um, every time we have one of these, our conversations, it's a reminder of how fast time passes. I agree because it just goes like this and it's kind of. But anyway, I think it's been like one and a half years since we last talked. So what's been going on in your life? What's happening? What are you excited about? What are you thinking about? What's new?

Speaker B: Oh, that's a very good question. If I would be one and a half years. I think one of the things I'm most maybe proud of if I put this way is to get the post listed to the Finnish um, stock exchange, I think end of last year. Yeah, October last year. I think that was a tremendous job. Everything from turning it around and getting it done. It's been the road trip of my life on that since um, it wasn't the first IPO I've done. I think it's my seventh. But that has really been, you know, getting a 400 year old company, government owned. So doing a privatization same time as listing and it being successful, the price has hold. Got a lot of good feedback. So I think that if I would take one highlight from business perspective on that sense, that would be one. If I then take my private life. My oldest son got married and there's nothing better than seeing your kids getting married. They're lovely day. So I think those are the two, uh, edges on that one. And then as usual I tend to get myself mixed in the businesses where there's some trouble and I like solving problems so I don't complain at all.

Speaker A: Yeah, there's plenty of trouble these days. Um, okay, we can quickly kind of double tap a little bit on the poste, um, because that's interesting. I think I looked up the stock price a couple days ago and I feel like it's been doing pretty well at least year to date. Um, but can you kind of walk through. Well first of all, like what, what was the turnaround? What was the transformation that needed and what was the, was it a big decision to go public? I mean you said this uh, old company, government owned. How did what was the strategic decision behind the ipo?

Speaker B: I think let's, let's start this way. I remember when I came to Posta, which was after you, won't you. Everybody forgets it, but we had a 19. Quite a crisis which actually led the Finnish Prime Minister to be fired off his job because of Poste strike. So uh, then comes Corona, you know, the whole turbulence. Uh, you have the declining paper market. You have a m storm in all levels from political to business to all kind of things. And when I came there in uh, mid-20s and uh, we just sat with a CEO who had just also started internal recruitment. Let's redo. Let's really see what is Posti all about. So it was all about deciding Posti's purpose. Why are we here? What are we doing now? What do we have in this company that doesn't. Doesn't fit? I don't know. We sold all the way the. You know, the grass clipping and the grandmother, uh, grandmother food things. And uh. There was so much rubbish on that company which it had gathered in years. Sold, sold, sold, sold, sold. We even sold our Russian business and got the money um, six weeks before the war started. Pretty damn lucky. Uh, but, but uh, you know, we just really, really got all it clean. We put a very clear. We are here to deliver what matters to the receiver and matters to the sender. And that's what we're going to do. Uh, we are a delivery business. In one or the other way was a strategic change. Clarity. And these are the four things we're going to do. Customer first. Our image is still not on top, but God, have we grown it in all the public things. Our employment, you know, the uh, NPS of the employment. I think it had you measured in the middle of end 19. It had been a minus 200. Whatever. Um, and that is really in well things. So it's really a fundamental transformation of the company. Same time the company had never ever. You know, after this first one, one and a half years, the last three years it has earned more than ever because we've done some structural changes the way we work. Uh, automation. Classic case, a schoolbook case of what you do. And then the ipo. That's of course an owner's decision at Finnish State. And the Finnish State luckily has a decision that Posti was named as a commercial company. You know, a point is of being a commercial. And if you have a commercial company, they have no interest to uh, uh, own it 100%.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: The decision of not having 100% was already done maybe 10, 12 years ago. And then it was even taken down. So the state should own 33% maximum. And that was the pain of it. So there was, you know, we got the business going. The owners had a decision and want to not have it fully owned.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: And those two emerged. And I think what was the brave on that decision is that we did it in last autumn. The IPO window was this open and we said we can fit ourselves into that one. And there was also a lot of looking for poster kind of quite stable, slightly boring dividend focused money. There was a market for that kind of thing. So, uh, it was a hard work. And then all the stars aligning and being a bit, uh, brave, both the company and the owners.

Speaker A: Yeah, very interesting. And we have not had too many IPOs in Finland in the last two years. So post it was probably a very. I don't know exactly numbers, but two

Speaker B: or three last autumn, if I remember right, but very few.

Speaker A: And just the transformation that you described, which, you know, always when you put it, it sounds so simple, so clear. Um, you just divest from these areas. You focus, you find your purpose. But ah, and this, I mean focus and clarity and kind of that is things that you've mentioned in the past and I think probably one of your key strengths. But what do you think it is so difficult in not just. And we don't have to talk just about poste, but in a company, any company, where clearly, if you look at it from kind of your eyes, with that kind of sober objectivity, you're like, why are we doing all these things? Why do you think it's so difficult for companies like that to make what in hindsight at least seems like the obvious decision. Uh, focusing on the core business.

Speaker B: I think there is a. One thing is that usually when you decide not to do something, if it's an existing thing you're doing or selling, for example, it's gonna. Your top line is gonna go down, sales are gonna down. And it's like, ah, but you know, our sales are gonna down. And specifically, if you're a listed company, how are we gonna explain this to our shares? But even any other shareholder, how are you gonna explain it? So that would be one. Just from general reason. But the bigger issue is you don't wanna kill your hobby horses. There's somebody whose organization. This is my favorite product and you know, this is strategically important. And what I say sometimes I'm a big, as you know, a big number fan. And I keep saying, look how many euros you Actually earn on this business, actually earn euros. But your gross margin is great. I don't care if the gross margin is 90%. If the euros you earn is $0.01 or $0.50, it doesn't really matter. So you have to have this combination of facts. Uh, euros is a good fact. Then together kill your favorites and just saying, sorry, this is. Or even better in our case, we got to sell them somewhere, you know, they have a better home somewhere else. You don't have to maybe close them, but find if you can get and sell them, you know, sell them or actually just give them away to somebody else who can keep this favorite baby alive. But it is very, very difficult because, uh, you get emotionally touched. We also. No, no, we are very rational. No, we' we get emotional touch with everything you do with the customers and there's a customer but you. We don't earn money because they don't want to take the price increase. I said, listen, if they love us as much as we love them, give them a 30% price increase. Either they stay and we all happy or they go and then that's it. Um, but we, we just got very stuck or we're afraid of the loss. That's a human psychology.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: You know this. If we get €100 and we lose €100, you know, we drop €100 in the street. The €100 that we dropped on the street feels like 500. I think 300 is the right number, but feels like emotionally huge. Even if you get 100, even if you find €200, you still lost the €100. You're still not equal. So there is something in human psychology that drags you away from making the difficult decision, which means that we're going to get away with it. But you have to do them. You have to do them.

Speaker A: It's so fascinating how much of a strength, like just the psychology and the, um, emotional awareness, emotional maturity is such a huge competitive advantage as opposed to like the intellect and the domain expertise. Like all. I feel like a lot of times, like you said, it's not about having some brilliant insight. It's about having the wherewithal to be able to pursue it.

Speaker B: Like a duality. Because if I don't have the numbers, yeah, everybody thinks we're rational. So you have to have the story in numbers. So you look at the numbers and it might be the other way around, that that's the great product that we keep and that we're going to, you know, invest in. So you have to have the rational because we you know, if you do only emotional decisions, that those are garbage. But if you don't acknowledge the fact that we are human beings, uh, in the end, our stomach has more rule in our system than the brain. So I would say in that sense, it's the combination. You know, it's understanding. There's a psychology and there's the numbers. And having worked with consumer businesses, really trains you on this one, because we do make the decisions in the shop more with our tummy than without. Even if the price is there. The price comparison, I like that brand, I like the color. You know, if the difference isn't too big, you'll end up going with the emotions without you knowing it.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think that's probably very true. Like, if you start from a consumer background, as you transition then maybe into B2B or whatever it is, you bring a certain understanding of human psychology that not necessarily. You don't necessarily get that exposure training if you just do what should be strictly rational. We're going to choose vendor A because they have better terms or whatever. Um, okay, let's talk a little bit about something that I think you're quite familiar with. Leadership.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Um, you just mentioned you've done seven IPOs, which must be up there in terms of Nordic. Um, you know, not counting investment bankers, obviously, but people who are actually in boards or executive roles. Um, so you've been in lots of different boardrooms. You've seen, Worked with lots of different CEOs and management teams. And, um, I just, you know, as you, as your approach. I don't know. When was the last time you took on a new board? It's been a, it's been a while.

Speaker B: Oh, it's been. Actually, Finnair would be the last one three years ago, but I. Yeah.

Speaker A: But anyway, I'm sure, you know, companies are approaching all the time and I'm sure you got a sense of, you know, the quality of the leadership, CEO, management team. So, like, how. Yeah. What is kind of your first gut when you meet someone? Like, what are the things you pay attention to, to determine? Like, oh, okay, this is a. This, uh, is a talented management team. I believe that they have what it takes to do whatever.

Speaker B: You know, when I enter the company, I call it somebody, I start to build a puzzle. Uh, just. I come back to you in my first, first, first meeting. But, you know, is it the first piece of the puzzle? And then you start, you have to turn. You have to have this mindset of, I'm going to build this puzzle around, so give me a For example, I usually meet the CEO first. You're right. I actually usually meet the CEOs before I become a chair. Because if I feel we are completely not going to get away, then don't go there, uh, as a chair or with exception, if the owners have said that you are entering there because the CEO must go, then that's a different story. But usually that's not the case. So you have to have a certain feeling that we can get along, we can be very different, but there is something on the value base we can get along. So usually meet the CEO first. You get first puzzle, uh, the cfo. Then you start to meet the leadership team. And that is really crucial because when you meet them, you start to see do they talk about same things, do different things, you get the wipes, you ask some questions. I have one favorite question. I'll come back on that one as well. So it is a puzzle building. So as a new board member, as a new chair, I have to build the puzzle. There will be still puzzles. I will never get the full picture, but the more picture I have, if it's the horse, is it a dog, is it the rabbit, whatever, what do we have in front of me? But the first thing is very much is what you hear from a person is if there's somebody who comes very dry gone talk, um, about back our previous discussion. Facts, facts, facts. This is the turnover, this is the number, this is the balance sheet, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they talk nothing about the people, they talk nothing about, uh, there's no passion when they talk on the business. You don't feel the engagement, you feel them to being robot, ah, likes. Then it's a huge warning sign for me because then usually even if the company is doing well, you're not getting to the full potential. So it's really, it's the same thing. When I interview, I ask, always my first interview question is, tell me about yourself. And it's very interesting to see do they start from their career or do they start as human beings? And I do. As soon as they start as a career of business, I tend to actually stop them quite quickly. Oh, let's start from the start. Where did you grow up? And quite a few people get completely blown off by this one. But, but I'm here to get a job now. Yeah, but I'm here to hire a person, not a, you know, cv. Uh, so it's a bit similar thing. Uh, but it's really about the puzzle. It's about trying to fill the puzzle as quickly as Possible, as many pieces as possible. So go to the company. But same time is every time I go to a new company, I have this, what I call first impressions. Not last, but first impressions. You do last as well. But I write them down because there's usually hints about things that after a while when you get old information, you lo what's really interesting or you lose the point. There was something in here. So then I tend to go back there about six months, 12 months later and saying, whoa, there was this point that I have underlined, but I haven't been going after the puzzle. So I have to go back and say, well, I need to go and understand that puzzle bit better. Uh, so that would be a bit more than just the first intention. But it's a game. It's a puzzle game.

Speaker A: Yeah, I bet. And the thing you said there about, um, we as humans, we reveal a lot about our identity and priorities by what we say, just by what we choose to focus on. So if you just ask a question, you let people talk, um, they will probably reveal a lot more than they think. Than they think.

Speaker B: Absolutely.

Speaker A: And when you have that background, having seen so many different companies and leadership teams that you got the pattern recognition,

Speaker B: you can go off on both sides. You can go also off that. If I ask, tell me about yourself shortly, which I said, I'll give you seven minutes. And they have talked about five minutes about what they did when they were football champions, 15 years old. Uh, that's not good either. Uh, you have to find the balance.

Speaker A: Exactly. Um, what do you think are the most common reasons that leadership teams or CEOs fail? Is there anything that stands out?

Speaker B: If I look at my past and don't ask me how many CEOs I have been forced to release from their duties, but there's been quite a few. Uh, I think the first thing what usually comes is you don't make results. And that sounds really tough. That's usually the signature top of iceberg. And specifically, you don't make the results you have promised to make. And the reason I'm m saying this, so I'm not saying, oh, that you don't grow. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying is you have said, this is what I'm delivering. And then you keep failing on that delivery because that tells me that the person is not analyzed the business well enough. They haven't understood what's going in the business. They have not done plan B's, uh, plan B or C or whatever. By the way, with Me, that doesn't work anyway, because I asked them anyway. But that's a different story. But, you know, they don't have an understanding. They then come and then they don't have an analytic mind saying, okay, we, we, we're not reaching the goals, we need to reset the goals because this is what's lacking and gapping. Oh, but the market is bad, or this and that and whatever. No, you have to take a responsibility. So that would be still the first thing that usually. Because also if you lose the credibility with the board, you have also lost credibility with your management team. And that goes to a second point. Um, I think the worst cases I've have had is because I do the puzzle and I try to also create a relationship with the next line, even the next next line, not a close one. I don't go and talk to them on continuous basis. Uh, but. So they have met Sanna, they know who she is. And I had cases where people jump a couple of lines and say, it's not working with the CEO. That is, then you have a firefight, then you have a fire. Then of course you have to stop and think, is it because that person is trying to cover their own issues by pointing the CEO? And in that case, usually I know a couple of people better in their management team and I then them, uh, just saying, you know, just not telling somebody else's approach, but saying, by the way, and I tell the CEO, you know, because of this, I'm going to ask that and that. And it has happened a couple of times. And one of the times I had to fire the CEO quickest in terms of when I had recruited him, it was exactly this one. Suddenly three of the management team members said, this is not working. Um, so that would be a real fire thing on that one. The other thing is that sometimes people plateau. We all plateau in one point of time. Uh, and then there comes the fact that they are actually good, but the companies wrote for they're not good enough for the next five years or they have plateaued. I had a CEO that actually hired somewhere else as a CEO, but I kept telling, he's run 28 marathons in this company. There isn't another five marathons on this guy. So he's fulfilled his part. He actually hired another company five, uh, years later because he was good at what he did. But. But in this company, you just come blind. So these are maybe the three most common things that I would find when you have to do it, when you have to activate the change, and there's of course, the fact that very often the CEO says, I got to, you know, if they're doing well, somebody else approached me with twice as good salary and three times a big company. And then you just say, too bad, I'm the loser.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's, you know, it's not a lot of people have been in that position of having to let go multiple, uh, CEOs. That's a. Unfortunately, yeah, but tricky. Big decision. I mean, that's the biggest decision that the board can make. Right. Do they appoint a CEO?

Speaker B: It's the most important decision. Uh, and the board should have. Listen, if I take on that one, I've never been in a situation that you say, oh, I changed the CEO too early, so you have to be respectful for the time and do it when it needs to be done. But also, and I think I might have said this before, for me, it is actually torturing people to keep them on a position. They cannot fulfill the performance. I think that actually is a torture. And I'm very, very lucky to be on the position that I can't remember any of my CEOs who I haven't been referenced. Uh, six months ago, three months ago, the CEO that I worked when he used me as a reference because I know what they are good at. I know what they are, and I'm trying to always help them to saying, listen, these are your strengths. So when next time you do that job, maybe that way or whatever way, and then you have to do it nicely, humanly, but quickly.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And if you can do it in that way, that's very, that's a very kind thing to do. And I read somewhere where he suggested that, you know, when it comes to firing someone, obviously there's a lot of. Or you're thinking about firing someone, there's a lot of feelings, you know, maybe frustration on, um, their, you know, they haven't delivered. There's guilt for you, you hired them, you haven't coached them. There's all those feelings. And he said, and you can feel kind of resentment towards the person. But he said, you know, in the absence of, you know, some gross misconduct, like, you know, that's a different story. That's a different story. But, but in the absence of that, there's probably something that they're really good at. And if you approach it with a curious mindset of being like, hey, let me, you know, it's. This person is not working this role, but this person could be great somewhere. Like, I have to believe that and approach it with curiosity and Then my role becomes to be their biggest cheerleader and help them be there. Like recruiting agent, hiring agent.

Speaker B: Exactly. I have a great story of. And I think I would say it's a marketing director who used to work with me when I was still working as on the online operations. And, and I said to him that this is fast moving consumer business. I think you would actually do much better in Medical. And last 15 years he had a blowing career medical around the world. And he says, son, this is so funny. They keep telling I'm too quick. And I said, yeah, but this is the point of, you know, where you are and where you really need it. And it's been such a fantastic. I, uh, I think he's been his reference at least three or four times because he's also been doing so well. He's been promoted quite a few times. And that's such a luck, you know, at the moment I have no feeling of the fact that I had to tell him that I have to go. And I am so, you know, this is like this childishly happy as mother would be for their child. He's doing well. And when I see he gets a new job and he writes, I got a new job and I got promoted. And you're like, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Ah. And that is, um, that is, that is, um. That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

Speaker A: It must be really beautiful to see. And um, it's a good, good example. Um, you've seen a lot of CEOs, you work with a lot of CEOs, probably some very exceptional ones, world class, if you will. And you've seen, you know, ones that maybe are just merely good. Um, is there anything that separates the really, really good CEOs or leaders, shall we say, just leaders from the, you know, merely good ones?

Speaker B: Listen, if I would be very black and white, there's two ways to go in there. I sometimes find CEOs who have absolutely. You know, if you look at them and you talk to them, it's like, damn it, how can they do this? They don't have the, uh, uh, you would say the breeding. What I mean by the academic breeding. They don't have this, they don't have that. But God, they put all their energy and guts and they know that they need to have the right person. So it's a person. You say this person shouldn't be a great CEO. And they are just outstanding. And you're like, wow. And then you have these CEOs who are very meticulous and they do, and they have the toolkit and they can do that all kind of things. And these are like the two ways to go in there. Um, now, of course, very easy to me say the best CEOs have, which have both. You know, it's in that sense, in the very easy thing, but it goes back on that one that the exceptional CEOs maximize their own potential and their team's potential. And they are actually the ones who are very often changing people in their team because they know that any team has a weakest link. And um, if I don't upgrade the weakest link and sometimes they come back, now I'm the weakest link. That's exceptional. That's an exceptional. You have a CEO who says, I'm the weakest links, I got to get out. But a real good CEO start to think, who in this team is going to take over me. So, you know, it's the whole thing about one or the other way maxing more, you know, getting more out of your own raw material than you can get, but then also, also being able to do that one. Those are few and far apart. And I sometimes think, you know, we always say good to great, let's be great. These are exceptional persons. They've usually grown their leadership talents for reasons for years and years from their childhood. You know, if you've been growing your leadership talent childhood, you usually have about 10, 15 years edge versus the others who start to do it when they enter the work life. So, uh, in that sense, fantastic. But these are exceptions. And yes, you should look and observe and understand what they do. But you don't have to be exceptional to be really good. So for me, the exceptionals I feel about, you have the real good ones, you have okay ones. And sometimes okay ones are good enough because they do stability, they keep doing. And then you have the ones that you should be questioning whether you should help them to go somewhere else.

Speaker A: Do you think that obviously as you made the case, reaching that exceptional status requires certain preconditions that not everyone has. Ah, everyone is not capable of reaching that. But do you think that everyone has the potential to become a good or even very good leader?

Speaker B: Yes, um, yes. And that has to do with the fact that it starts with the self leadership. And this is what people specifically, and we've been on this one, so let's not go. But the finished word of leadership, uh, kind of implies you're leading others. So people forget that you actually the best attraction to lead others if you lead yourself well, because people will feel back on this feeling People will feel the magnet. They're like magnets. They, they're the ones, but I trust them. They are the ones that I know I can. They can give them my go, my power back. They're going to help me to solve the issues. You have this huge. It's an, it's an emotional leadership. They gain because they lead themselves and anybody can learn to be better leader of her or himself.

Speaker A: That's very true. Um, are you familiar with the founder mode discussion that was, I think it started, was it last year or the year before? But anyway, the idea was um, the best companies are run by founder CEOs who have complete authority. Often it could be like super voting shares. So they have actual, but just the implied authority of them having built the company. Um, and they can act and sometimes do act outside the org chart. So they'll just Elon Musk sell. They'll go wherever they feel like the bottleneck is. They'll change as needed and they'll just inspire people in a better way and they'll just get results. They'll move quicker, they'll solve bottlenecks. And the opposite would be then really these professional, experienced, um, polished CEOs and management teams who maybe have all the credentials but they don't have the passion, they don't have the domain expertise, they don't have the authority of the founder. Um, we haven't really seen um, a conversation like that. It feels like it's a very American thing. Um, because you have companies like Airbnb CEO, like CEOs of big companies. Steve Jobs was not one example. Elon Musk, wealthiest person in the world, very much does that. So it feels like it's an American thing. But you having been exposed to all kinds of different CEOs including startups where you have founders and so on. What are your thoughts on that? Is there truth in this or do

Speaker B: you think that actually there is truth in that. But what it has to do with the fact is that you have to look at where the company is. Let me give you put an um, entrepreneur, crazy passionate, non organized CEO, uh, to poste the company's going to die. It's about logistics, it's about structure, it's about getting things done. If you have somebody who's running around like a uh, yo yo, because what happens very open founders, it becomes this way. It's a dictator. You know, everybody runs up to a founder because you know there's one person to take the decision. I took over. We delist the company. Uh, bull concept which, which which was a founder led. I remember when I came to the organization, I was trying to figure out the organization scheme and I said there is no because it's been run by a founder for even it was listed for tens and tens of years. So the whole organization sheen was like going up and down. Very ineffective. No disowned decision making because in the end the owner decided. So I've seen it. Did the founder mode actually crash? Because it was the right mode maybe 15, 20 years before. But then you have to say there's a certain point of time you start to mix them. Elon Musk they had even all these big names we talk about us. They usually have a fantastically good COO who's the structured guy. So it's again the one plus the other. Then the guy in the top can run around and do all kind of things because they have this very, very trusted backup who does the structural part. Because without the structural part after a certain while the company starts to fail. Uh, I've been chairing some very entrepreneurial companies and this is exactly what I see. The issue is if the CEO takes both all these parties, the company in the end can't grow. Eventually that person becomes an issue of the growth and anything that doesn't grow dies eventually. So the smartest, the ones you mentioned, they have this management person CEO who then keeps making sure there is a structures and all kind of things even if we don't see them outside because they have this fantastic uh, spokesperson and one that runs around uh, and that combination again combining the 1 and 2, it's not either or. And then depending where the company is, you have to have both on this one. But the both cases, it's not always no company is run by one person. At the end no company is run by one person.

Speaker A: That's a really good point. Evolution. There's probably a risk when you only read the headlines and you see these stories and you have young people, maybe older people as well can be like hey, I want to emulate that, I want to copy that. And they don't see the other part of it. If you take Steve Jobs for example, he had Tim Cook, um, who is a logistics supply chain guy, very much the opposite of Steve Jobs.

Speaker B: Because if you're really these outstanding founders which you just mentioned, they understand very quickly the one I talked about, you know, they were the outstanding persons. And you look at them and they are completely. And it's a God. How the hell did they have a company has so many employees because they have ah, somebody Else who knows this and they know that they need these persons. And in fashion you have the muse sometimes with the. But very often you need to build some partnership. You can't do it alone.

Speaker A: Yeah, especially, uh, just I remember reading about, uh, Walt Disney and he was the creative genius. And it's like, no, I guess he had business sense, but he just didn't care about it. He cared about the art. And then you had his brother Roy, which was. He was the accountant, the business guy. He had to deal with all that.

Speaker B: You see quite a few companies that combination. I've just, by the way, just reordered, uh, subscribed. Uh, uh, there's now Donald Duck classic in Finnish.

Speaker A: Is it on Disney plus or.

Speaker B: No, no, no, no, no. Uh, the good old Donald Duck, the little magazine that comes on everything, which is the classic, which has the guard banks and everything. Sorry, just chose the childish side of myself. I saw that there is now classic. I don't want to have that one, but I want to have the classics.

Speaker A: What was the other. There was another famous cartoonist, uh, that drew. I, uh, forget his name. But anyway.

Speaker B: But there's like spectacular. Yeah, that's actually funny.

Speaker A: Anyway, sorry, um, on leadership. Is there something. Do you have any contrarian takes? Any hot takes? Anything that you just passionately believe about leadership? The most of your peers would, uh, not agree with.

Speaker B: I don't know if it's about leadership. Uh, this was one of the difficult questions you asked me. But I don't believe on the 100 days there's a lot about this, oh, new CEO, 100 days. I don't believe it.

Speaker A: What do you mean 100 days?

Speaker B: You have this very, oh, give me my 100 days problem. So the new CEOs come to the company and after the first hundred days they tell, oh, this have to do and this have to do and whatever. I don't believe on it at all. Because if the company is in crisis, 100 days is too long. If the company is not in crisis, 100 days is too short because you don't want to anything. You don't really yet understand how it moves. So that I think would be. Would be one of them. The second thing I think is really a lot about this combination of that we talked earlier, the fact that I'm looking both the toolkit and then how they can work with the people. And this has, you know, sometimes people put people in the boxes. One of the best people working with people are introverts. You know, I'm just challenging this one because sometimes, oh, we want to have a charismatic leader. Uh, you can have a charisma which is visible and you have a lot of charisma if your personality is right. So maybe my recruiting methods are ah, slightly different in terms of leadership. Looking for the, you know, I'm looking the whole person. I really think the whole person, anytime, anywhere, any. Because very often I get to also be part of recruitment of the management team as the godmother, uh, of the system. And um, there's been situations where the CEO has says, I really want to hire that person. I say I wouldn't. But you know, it's not, it's, I'm not there to veto. Uh, of course if there would be. But, but there's been and there's been a case when we once said that, you know, we need to test this first person more. And we found things about the person on the psychological test, uh, which I do believe in the psychological test because I'm not a guru, I'm not a witch, I can't read that. And we found this person and it was actually quite dramatic because as soon as the, the test results came in, the headhunter called us. Before the results came in, forget it. We're not going to take this person. And we had all failed to see a dark side of this person that was really violent. Um, so, uh, I don't know if they are really radically different. We all have our own schools, uh, on what we believe. But maybe the 100 days was one of them that I really do. And then, you know. But this is not leadership. I do not believe in strategies with a year on end of it. But that's a different story. Except if you want to attract all the consulting companies giving you a call a year earlier, that's a different story.

Speaker A: Well, we can actually transition to um, strategy, but just on the point of making those. Especially when it comes to hiring CEOs, so few people do it so few times. So it's really difficult to even have a track record and being able to pattern recognize. Um, because I guess, you know, hiring like senior executives is if you're doing it yourself, you're not. Most people don't do it that much. So they don't really.

Speaker B: But even for me, it's the most difficult thing. It's the one thing that I fail most. No, to recruit people, I mean, listen, even if you do it a lot, you still fail because they might be match with the other leadership team. Uh, it is also I've once had this, which is dramatic. We hired a person to do growth. This was just before 08, uh, and 08, suddenly the world went to balalaika. And you didn't want to have a growing. You wanted to have somebody who did restage. That person just didn't have a toolkit. It was really dreadful to go within a year of that person saying, sorry, we need to change you. And uh, he was really, really sad. I said, you don't have toolkit. Yes, I do. No you don't. So there are a lot of reasons that I still find it, uh, mind boggling and, and uh, it's unnerving. Uh, and by the way, this is the result, the reason sometimes people don't change the CEOs or anybody in the management team because it's also difficult for the CEOs or anybody to recruit. One of the reasons you don't change people early enough is because you're dreading, how do I find somebody who's better? I know this one. I know this person's failures and strengths and weaknesses. Uh, and, um, because there is so much insecurity always when you do with the people, then you end up doing nothing. That is usually the worst mistake you make.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Basically, you know, the short term pain is. So you want to avoid that. So.

Speaker B: And the insecurity.

Speaker A: The insecurity, yeah. I mean, I mean the hiring cycle is so long for an executor. Also you're like, oh, and what if

Speaker B: you then do wrong and I have to do it again and you can really. And then six months have gone and 12 months are gone and then you end up just having to do something really radical.

Speaker A: Do you then. Because I remember reading that Netflix had this thing that they would. I forget what it was, but it was something. Maybe it was about severance or something that if you hire someone and you have to let them go within 6 months, 12 months, like that there was some kind of, um, uh, maybe it was just like an added severance or something to lower the bar for managers to correct.

Speaker B: Smart, Smart.

Speaker A: Do you have something like when you make a.

Speaker B: Uh, no, no, no, I haven't. But that's actually smart because, uh, uh, very often it happens that. Specifically in our dear home country of Finland, but it very often happens if you do a wrong hiring, then everybody starts to hit with a hammer in your head, you made mistake, you made mistake, you made mistake. Ah. And doing something which, you know, even doing that one, just, let's give an extra month, whatever, a small sum which basically sends the message from the management, if you fail, fail faster. Yes, and that it's not wrong, it's better to correct. You know, you're actually giving a bonus to correct things versus bonus to make mistakes. It's nearly a correction bonus. Fantastic idea. Maybe I should put it somewhere. I don't know. It's a hangover.

Speaker A: Yeah, it's one of those things, like small, uh, things. But it's a big also signal of how a company run. Like how do you accept the fact that we're all going to make mistakes? Or do you shame people for making mistakes?

Speaker B: Correct and specific growth situation. If you grow exponentially and you just have to hire whatever, 15, 20 people all the time and you. And you get this hiring kind of tiredness, then actually, uh, then also ensuring, you know, maybe that after six months you have to make call or after whatever it's that that bonus only counts for first six or nine months, which also forces. Because another thing happens if you grow, grow, grow. You don't actually measure the people who are coming around because you're just happy you have a piece of hands on there. So it also has this fantastic idea that it forces you to evaluate the person and saying, do we do P and G? Where I started my career, uh, we had the, uh. I was really sad when, when I started we had the first promotion after first year we had like basically a, you know, title, which was an assistant to an assistant to an assistant. Not really, but type of this kind of really low title. And then they took it away. Uh, which means the first promotion was after three years. Until that you were an assistant brand manager. And I thought it was a huge mistake because what it actually forced you is forced you after a year to say, is this person okay for the promotion? And it was also a huge perk for the person I got promoted, you know, after first year. Yes, you can go and tell your friends I got promoted, you know, uh, but it may force you to stop. And this is some, um, One of the big things that we don't do enough today. A lot of places we can talk about stop, think. And you have to nearly bring. You know that if it's a Netflix idea, what I love on that one is not only it's just encouraging you for the reparations, but it forces you to stop and think, have I done the right thing? Versus you just hire, hire people. And then suddenly you say two years later, oh my God, why is that person still there? And then again, back on my point, you've been torturing this person every day because they've been poor people, been trying to do a job. They don't have the right capabilities.

Speaker A: Exactly. Yeah.

Speaker B: Thanks.

Speaker A: Um, let's talk a little bit about strategy. Uh, there's a couple of, couple of things I want to talk. Uh, let's start with Finnair. We're only going to cover it briefly,

Speaker B: but everybody loves it. Happy that everybody loves it.

Speaker A: But let me just kind of set it up. So just looking from the outside, it feels like there's, uh, certainly been challenges one after the other. There was Covid, uh, it ah, was closure of the Russian airspace, which essentially took away one of the major competitive advantages, unique position that Finland had. There were some labor disputes, lots of canceled flights. Um, now there's apparently some fuel, uh, issues, shocks going on, slight hormuz thingy. Slight, slight thing there. M. And then of course there's, um, there's been probably some, I don't know the airline market all that well. I read an interesting book on how the airline industry got started in the U.S. um, it was pretty wild. There were some really interesting stories in there. Hard Landing was the book I recommended. Um, have you read it?

Speaker B: Yes, I have.

Speaker A: It's fascinating. Uh, but anyway, there's been some changes. For instance, there's the ultra low cost, Ryanair being the example, Huge market cap, very profitable, very clear positioning. And then there's like the iag, um, British Airways and ones who are like the long haul transatlantic premium. Um, and Finnair, I guess is maybe somewhere in the middle there. So there's a ton of external things happening and probably lots of internal that we don't know about. But, um, you can take this however you want and go into any one of those specific things. But I think just, just more broadly, I think the interesting question is when you're, um, leading the chairing, chairing that kind of company, and you have all these crises coming, how do you set the strategy? How do you navigate and steer the company in those types of environments where there's just all those external factors?

Speaker B: There's about airline industry. There's a saying which goes, always interesting, never boring. Which is a very good description of the industry in general. You know, if there is a rabbit that sneezes in Australia, we have a problem. Uh, you know, and part of that is daily. You know, when there is, uh, wars or natural disasters, we have to change daily. So living in crisis is the DNA of an airline company because everything changes or just the snow chaos. You know, put a 5 millimeters now in Heathrow and it's locked and then the whole thing is shebang. So just One thing that people have to understand that the crisis management for an airlines is a basis, modus operandi, basics. Um, now of course the big ones you just mentioned, the Covids and the Ukraine and everything are exceptionals and I wouldn't call them a normal crisis in any means on that one. Uh, and I think the whole thing of the airline industry per se is that um, you know, you talk about the book and sometimes you feel like it's a bumblebee. How the hell does the whole system fly? Yeah, but, but there is the whole thing about, I've worked with, I think I've been on more than 20 boards and my own job before that one. Airline business is the most complex business there is. Uh, and before I go and answer your question, I say that, you know in one second you're talking about, one second, one thing you're talking about, there is a snow chaos in Europe. Your whole week's profitability might be gone because your planes and customers and luggage get stuck on wrong places and you have to get it back. The second thing you flip your fingers and saying whoa, we have to buy some airlines. If we buy them today, we're going to get them in eight years time. When the eight years time comes, these planes are going to operate 20 plus years. So in next second I'm going to talk about what is the right plane type I need to have to operate in 25 years time. So the strategic range, the one is operational. And if you think of management team, they basically have to flip on this one they say okay, coffee break. And we just talk about the chaos. And now we're going to talk about what do we fly in 25 years. Whoa. I mean retired by that time. But you still have to do that thinking. And it's same is true for the strategy and that kind of thing. So it just shows the complexity. Now going back on the whole finran strategy, I think there is nothing more important than in airline business to deciding what the strategy is and go back on making the choices, making the right choices, uh, um, deciding what you want to do and in the same time keep a certain flexibility. So it is a really. But you have to decide what do you want to do, who are you really pleasing and how are different, maybe different parts of your business. You look at Lufthansa and they just killed the companies. I think now they only have seven companies left. I think they had nine or eight. They just basically uh, put a crack shock over a company. So another thing is because of all these disputes you mentioned because of the complexity, because the short, whole narrow bodies are very different animals than the long haul big bodies. A lot of big companies have uh, several companies within it and then the complex just increases. On the other hand you're doing that because you want to have those companies then being specifically on this one and specifically or entities. So you try to get the clarity out of the clutter. So that's the whole thing of that one. Finnaire's case, uh, if I say two words with this one. We came with a new strategy last autumn. Talk about why my last year was slightly busy. Ah, the strikes and the IPO posting and then that one we came with a new strategy and we really started again. We did very much about uh, purpose. What is it all about? And um, it's all about. Finnair is all about a Finnish company for in that sense Finnish needs. We're an island. And I keep. Somebody keeps saying we're not an island. Yes we are because getting any goods out of this country requires water. Uh, so we are an island. Um, and we need an airline company can do that one. On the other hand we are so few people that we need the other people to help us in order to be able to fly to all places. So example, one of the things already when we were able to go to Asia and we still fly, we have one of the biggest operations to Japan from outside is because there is a Japan connection and we want to get the Finnish business people to Asia which has not enough people on the 5 million. So we need to also ensure that we have the connections to fill those planes. So it's all about on the other hand serving the little country of 5 million people which makes us very boring to the companies like Ryanair. There isn't enough mass to get them out to a couple of places. Um, and then on the other hand we need. So it isn't complex but that decision of saying we're going to serve the Finnish market, which isn't very different from the past. We have some different requirements but in order to be able to serve the Finns where they want to go. Finns want to also go vacation to Bangkok, but we just don't have enough Finns to go to Bangkok every day. So we need to attract, we need to get the people from our partner companies on the oneworld in order for them to fly by a Helsinki. Helsinki is a fantastic airport to fly by. World is round. We live very, we are very connected. For example Japan because we can go above when the winds are right way. So all these Things, um, helps us to be that. But we are the company for Finns for Finnish purposes. And then we need strategically to have a situation that we can actually get help from the others to come in there. Then luckily, Nordics are getting very, very hot on the tourist market.

Speaker A: Um, that plan's booming.

Speaker B: Yeah. And listen, the Swedes don't have airports by the snow places. We have Rovomi, Khoza, Ivalo. We actually can fly where the snow is. The other two countries can't. Norway is Norway. You have to land in the seaside and then you drive in the country. But basically, if you think about something like Cosa, uh, Mazda, you can be on the slopes 20 minutes later when you land. So there are, you know, some edges which are also going. But that's again about. It's about Finland. It's about getting people to Finland from Finland and then getting the help of the fact that in order to get the Finns where we want to go, we need to have some help from other countries and get them to choose to go via Finland. Luckily, Ukraine, the Ukraine before Ukraine and the all the travel over thing, uh, a lot of people had tried Finnair, so we have a huge affinity of people who choose to fly with us versus some bit more questionable airlines.

Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, just from my very unbiased Finnish perspective, I think Finnair for me is like, you know, a, uh, really, you know, top brand. Uh, but there's so many things that go into like nostalgia. So it's not very. It probably doesn't.

Speaker B: It's important. That's important. That's important to have that proudness and bring that proudness to work as well. We are a proud Finnish carrier and we should be. I mean, the work that the company has done, the people in the company has done since COVID I mean, you looked last year, uh, without the strikes. But look at the last, last fourth quarter was the best fourth quarter I think ever in the company's history. So, you know, there's never waste a good crisis, let's not go our favorite topics on that one. But never waste a good crisis. So you can also find something good about it and then you have to keep doing it. But now it was a key to put a strategy in there where we, where we do, uh, embrace the finishness and we embrace the fact that we have this complexity and doing as an airline business, nobody wants to really buy a very well profitable airline. It's a very bad deal. So people usually, uh, wanted that one. So the, uh, best way for Finnair to keep Going is to keep making money.

Speaker A: Yeah, that sounds about right. And a lot, I mean this goes back to I think probably a lot of the same things you mentioned with posti clarity, purpose finding your positioning, um, like leading that type of process inside a company as I'm sure you've done many times. Um, how do you go about doing that and what do you think are the most common mistakes that leaders make when they're trying to lead that kind of strategy uh process? Is it taking too much time, too little time, involving too many people, too few people? What are the really common mistakes? Because it's a very delicate process.

Speaker B: I think the first if I now only took from the board's perspective the biggest mistake I see sometimes happening is the management gets busy with the strategy and then they come with something. Here's the strategy. Please board to approve. And the board has a lot of points because usually they're quite experienced people. And then chaos occurs and disappointment uh, and all kind of things. So the first thing is and this is true to all strategy work also to the levels in the company is inter. Make it interactive. So the best uh, you know, let's keep a foster as an example. In 2020 we decided to keep our uh, kick off the strategy. We actually the purpose was made by the top management within six weeks and it has to be top management because in the values you have to involve everybody. But on the purpose you have to have people who know where the company is going to be or they have a feeling where the company is going to be in 10 years time in order to make a purpose that has a future proof thing on that one. But then I think we had the first strategy rounds with the positive board in June. Then we had. I think it came to the board four times and then it was approved in December. But then everybody was in the boat. And same time we did the same thing with the employees. We were not asking the employees to do this. I'm thinking now much more lower levels positive have 15,000 employees. But we were integrating it backwards. So this is the idea. Do you understand this one? So the best processes are one, you interact still it took us eight months. Uh, sometimes uh, but interaction is going to cost time. No, it's actually going to speed you up because you both vis a vis your maybe this level two, level three and you interact with them and you take your partner strategy and say let's talk about this one. How do you understand the words what to say? Are we getting the right message out with this one? What would be the KPIs for that one. So interactive means speed, not the other way around. So that's both the failure and the good thing. So do it interactive, uh, and do it a couple of times. Um, if it hasn't been aboard at least twice, I would say three times. And that would do with Finnaire as well. Uh, that's one thing. And then the fact is when you start that process, you agree or you get common factors, facts. So you share a huge amount of facts. Finnaire's case, uh, which was quite shocking to me, but we haven't really looked, uh, the customer base and where we knew who the customers were, but we really didn't know who was the customer base. How do we group them? Who really does the. Makes the money? The money. And then. And the volumes are not always the same thing. And then you made sure that the board and the management, and the management also below has the same base of facts. We agree on these facts. Facts. We understand these facts. These are the base for the strategy. That's the first interaction. M. And then you keep going. But it has to be the management who does it. The board cannot make a strategy. It is the management who owns the strategy. But the board and both the management have to think about both upwards and downwards. You have to be involved on that one. Um, it's never very, very complicated. Business leadership is not rocket science. It's not even science, but let's leave that aside.

Speaker A: Exactly. Um, I wanted to hear Dan ask uh, a few questions kind um, of about trends both related to the Nordics because you got this pan Nordic perspective and also because you're involved in a lot of businesses so you see probably some of the impacts of AI and technology trends. Uh, but first, uh, uh, I think there was an article in a Danish newspaper. I forget exactly which one. You said, um, uh, translated to English, that Denmark should be like a hedgehog. So like a small animal, but, uh, an animal that's really painful to eat if one were to try. So, um, can you unpack what you mean by that? In what sense? And uh, is that something also that you think apply to Finland or maybe all the Nordic countries?

Speaker B: Uh, m. First of all, it should apply all of them, but it is actually a story about Finland. I tell you a story. I went to the national defense course, uh, uh, earlier this year and the head of the Finnish army in her opening, in his opening speech was telling that Finland is like a hedgehog. So he was telling that story. So, uh, same time, same day, I was called the Finnish, the Danish Press because it was the Groenland issue and everything, all kind of things. And I used that one. I said. And I, I think they. I literally said that one. The Finnish is already a hedgehog and you should become a hedgehog.

Speaker A: I see.

Speaker B: So that's it. So yes, all the Nordics should become a hedgehog. But there. Here's the story I told them in, in a final speech when the same uh, head of Finnish army came to the national defence course and saying, I have to admit I stole your sentence. I thought it was great. He said I'm all fine because I stole it too. And I said from who? Apparently this is what Leonin had said to Stalin about Finland, that Finland is like a hedgehog and the specifically fact is you can eat it, but it's very, very bad to digest. So the story is brilliant. Uh, and yes, exactly. The small country should all become the hedgehogs. You know, the irritating little things that it's going to also be tough to eat them and it's going to be damn tough to digest them. And Finland is likely a hedgehog and Denmark is nowhere. I mean, I don't know what it is, uh, because it has no. Hardly army. It's a squeezing and all kind of things and it shouldn't be that one. So yes, uh, if all the Nordic countries, you know, it's like a team. If we could be the team of the hedgehog team, um, that would be really great. By the way, hedgehogs are very sweet. Take care of them. I took care of them when I was young. Uh, long story. That one as well. Let's leave that side.

Speaker A: That's probably something we should. I mean if you were to just combine the GDP of all the Nordic countries, unfortunately Finland wouldn't be. But we would bring something and just the knowledge and the human capital then we would be a uh, pretty significant power at least in Europe.

Speaker B: They are now starting this, um, Jakob Wallenberg, I know that he was bringing together, I met him when he was started this one and he's bringing all the Nordic companies together. A bit of like a mini Davos. Uh, this also bottom. Uh, to start to also feed because very often the Nordic companies, you know, when we start to look abroad and expanding, we actually say the Finns say oh, let's go to Germany because we don't really like the Swedes. They're a bit saying the Swedes don't like Danes because Danes are damn difficult. The Norwegians are not part of eu so we have some more issues with them. But you Know, it's all about how can we ensure that we have much more. We truly have an internordic. We used to have, before all we all we went to eu, we used to have an internordic market. How do we create an internordic market? So we become in that sense also more self sufficient. But actually why would we go and get some stuff from France or Germany if we can get it from Sweden? We should, you know, uh, we Finns are very good about made in Finland, but maybe, you know, made in Nordics is the next level. It's the next level. So you made in Finland, made in Nordics and then made in eu and then forgot forbid it made somewhere else. But I think this is. And it comes from NATO. The NATO. You know, I've been on the Nordic countries and I always been basically hitting my head on the wall how bad the Nordic countries have been cooperating in eu. I mean, we've lost the EU ministries because the Swedes and Danes were betting each other and the Dutch were like, we'll stay and get the words from everybody else. And then the Dutch got these two offices and we got none. Uh, dreadful. Um, so it's been really bad, the cooperation within the Nordics because you've been competing, you know, it's like a brotherhood. I don't care. And then the others win, which is really stupid. The family didn't. Uh, so NATO now suddenly. And also the Finns suddenly, you know, being the little brother and the uh, one with the poor little brother. I don't know. Little brother. The poor, poor brother. Poor brother. Anyway of the team, we suddenly have something to bring into the table, which is we actually have the defense systems. We are encased. We have, uh, we have a lot of stuff they don't. And they are completely. When I go to world now on Europe, they're just like, how come Finland kept the defense? What did you see? Nobody else saw. And we just said history. Uh, but the Finns suddenly are wanted to the table. You know, we are not the one who asks, can I, can I join? But they're like, please come in. Um, so we should use this NATO, Finnish positive. It doesn't last forever. And the Finns haven't understood this as shit. Uh, it should be, you know, we should sell to get the companies to get their factories in Finland on those areas. 1 no bloody data centers. But you know, Finland is such a big word, uh, since NATO. And this will eventually faint. And it's fainting already. But this is so. Yes, the army of the Nordic is the army of hedgehogs. And then, uh, let's get together and NATO has really made this possible. Suddenly this is the power of common enemy. We have a common enemy. And when eventually the Russia Ukraine war will stop. The Italians and the Spain, they don't even now care about the war because they don't have to. They have other issues with Africa and all kind of things.

Speaker A: Things.

Speaker B: It's never going to be over with us. Never. And the rest of the Nordics are now getting the learning that Finns have had in the last hundred years. So there's always something good about bad things. Uh, the power of this. The Finns are crazy about the Kalmar Union and they should be crazy about it because with Danish queens, I don't. Swedes will go on on that one. But was the Margaret of the first, who was the queen of the calmer union was that.

Speaker A: That was uh, with. That's what, uh, Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

Speaker B: Yes. And Finland was even part of Sweden, but partially so, you know, Queen Margaret. Queen Margaret first. I think Finns were part of it and Queen Margaret first.

Speaker A: We can re. Resurrect that.

Speaker B: And then every time I go in Finland. Ah, can we just start Karma Union. I said it won't happen. Uh, Danes are not aggressive enough. The Swedes can't live with the Danish queen again. So doesn't work that way.

Speaker A: There's some bad blood there. Um, just on topic of, um. Well, actually let's talk a little bit about AI and um, just because, um, it feels like. It doesn't feel like there's been a big change this last year. And the biggest, the most obvious example is anthropic. They were doing 9 billion in ARR. Annual recurring revenue by the end of the beginning of the year. And then in a couple of months they shot to 30 billion. I think they might be to 40 billion now. So we've never seen anything like that, that impressive. Um, valuation go triples to 900 billion. Just um, crazy. And it's not just hype. I mean the thing that's driving it, obviously there's massive increase in revenue that's coming from enterprises that have seemingly. Because there's been these probably both technical advancements, but also companies right now just figuring out, oh, okay, this is how we can use these AI tools and they just start spending like crazy on tokens and maybe that's going to balance out, who knows? But just from your perspective, are you seeing any major benefits, any major roi, any major initiatives in terms of AI or are we still at the point where it's a great tool for the consumer to use, I use it every day. But in terms of actually driving any real significant transformations, we're not seeing it.

Speaker B: I think there's a three bottle fold answer to that question. First of all, I think that you start to see a significant improvement on cost driven by AI of trying to you know, simplify projects, processes finding, uh, finding um, starting to find uh, improvements on efficiency, effectiveness. Uh, you know I think the biggest one is, is of course in the call centers you need less people because you automize. La la la la. So you start to see Zamaro, some roi, not significant, but some ROI on what I would call definitions and gains every time. I have some really good friends on the AI business that I'm very, very happy to meet. And that one nobody has still been able to tell me a AI based growth roi. You know, what's really bringing new things on the table. Efficiency, effectiveness. Yes, Growth zero. And then somebody tries to sell me, uh, look at this is, yeah, that's just another way of doing efficiency and just don't, don't, don't. There's nothing wrong with that one but I think we have to understand where it is. But the third thing, which I think I would say on that one. So the first thing is costs. Yes. Real growth, real new business, new growth coming because of AI. Not really, actually not at all. But the third thing is I truly believe that this is as big as Internet change. This is radically kind of forever changed. And as Internet had, and as this had, uh, as any major things have, we haven't seen nothing yet. And the biggest point for me this one is we have to talk about how, you know, it's the human part of this one. As with Internet, you know, you went from typewriting to Internet and where you know how it went, went much more slower, uh, point by point. But this is a radical overnight nearly step. But then how do we use this? You know there's these now a lot of words that you know, people do the stuff with the AI and then the bosses have to figure out the sources. You know, you actually, you know, because you can create a quite nice stuff, nice looking stuff and then you have to spend a lot of time checking was that really true? I mean a lot of journalists are finding this because when they don't do it they indeed shit. So, so, so for me it's really is still to saying so how do we really use this? So it gives you some benefits versus that it just clutters this Number of that one, you know we have a lot of issues about. I've stopped watching any kind of animal videos because so many of them are fakes. I uh, only follow people, you know, I've got back on following only people I know who are photographs or whatever because there's so many fakes which will backfire and this will backfire also people because uh, you know, you know when you start to see these answers from your friends which you say oh that was an agent ridden thing. I actually automatically at the moment I have some half business coincidences. If I get something that I can see it's agent written note from them, they blacklist it. I even block some of them just say forget it, you're out. I don't want to hear anything from you because either you're a friend or then you're just a time waster. So all these kind of things together, we're just in the start of that one. Uh, I think the token business is very interesting because at the moment they're giving a lot of tokens out in order to get to people to pay them and then you get hanged up on that one. And I don't think everybody even you know, if you would ask top management, they don't really understand token business. Talk to you earlier, I wouldn't either if I wouldn't have a son who's an AI entrepreneur. Which then explained me because when he start talking about the tokens one and a half years I'm like what's that? You know token for me is something you put on the washing machine when you were young. And then he explained it. So all these kind of things ah, are getting into that one. Uh, uh, so we are in the learning phase and we need to be quick on that one. There's going to be huge advantages on this, the efficiency effectiveness side. Um, but when do we really start to see the first cases that have really dramatically ensured better uh, profitability on top line phases and new products? Um, I'm not sure this year. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope nope nope. Because we will still because the efficiencies are the one you're going to go. So it's also partially because the fact that you want to take, take the low hanging fruits first and um, the efficiencies are the low hanging fruits which means in that one I think what we will see is we will see some of the digital businesses which we thought were great by being killed, disrupted by an AI. So you had a digital businesses which are uh, so you're going to see companies dying which were digital that were now taken over by an AI like the next generation of that business. So that I will think I will see but then in that company it's just growing because they're doing better than the digital company used to be. If you understand that then that's a growth company. So don't get me wrong, the companies will grow. But I'm really saying as an established company tell me where you really are going to see a top line growth. I know what's coming. I can see it and I have actually I have a company which I'm not going to tell which because of the AI and the customer interaction that we both take the cost of uh, acquiring the customer down and we got them to buy uh a price which is about up to 30% more. So you start to see all these. But that's not a new one. It's just efficiency on serving both and then achieving better sales with a lower cost. Beautiful. Love it. But that's not the new new product.

Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. Well it's going to be interesting too and these things probably take a long time as you said to work itself uh through big companies, major industries or major established companies.

Speaker B: But ligament interesting. Um Finnair has been working with AI on their um, um how do you do the. When you have to put the planes into a service so you know you figure out if they're coming anyway in because they have to have the filter change or whatever. What else can we do? In same time we can improve it so much more by getting it to generative. It's now an AI which was invented 10 years ago just to give something so but this is again it will be greater, it will be so much better. But it's improving an existing system. It's not and this is what I'm seeing. I don't see the new real products yet on that one. If when I talk about product I do see new companies I do see companies which are going to be killed. Um but remember this is a bigger than this is at least as big as Internet. It's going to be a great. It's a major and the companies need to take serious on that one. But it's about the human interaction with the AI where the beauty lies and that we haven't cracked at all yet.

Speaker A: I agree with that. Uh, a final question. Something I've been just a little bit thinking about as it relates to AI and the job market. Talked to um, a few people and uh, kind of in the professional services and obviously One of the things that they say is, hey, we're not going to need all these juniors the way we needed before because now we've got the AI that does as good a job and maybe we can just hire one really talented junior. They can use an AI that replaces four juniors. Like what we really need is we need the seniors with the judgment and experience, but the junior, like we don't need those. Um, and obviously that kills an entry into the job market for lots of young people. And I heard just in the gym locker room there was a couple of guys like 20 and they were in their school and they were thinking, they were talking about how you need to get this internship, uh, while your finance studies, otherwise you'll never be employable. And so there's some of that that wasn't maybe specifically AI related, but you kind of see some of the um, anxiety, um, and m you just thinking from some people who are now entering the job market. Um, and I do feel bad for some of them because uh, uh, obviously they have now access to lots of tools. Um, if they're curious and smart, they can do incredible things with AI in a way that wasn't possible for young people before. But also a lot of the major, the big job opportunities that could absorb hundreds of thousands of these, um, newly graduated, not super experienced people and they could get a job, they could start training and climbing up the corporate ladder. So, so all that to say, what are your thoughts? You have children, um, and you probably have lots of thoughts of what kind of advice would you give someone who's young today entering the job market and they're looking around, maybe they feel some anxiety, maybe they feel a lot of excitement. How should they think about.

Speaker B: Let me start from if I would have kids which are 15 years at the moment, uh, I would ensure that they get a job they can do with their hands, with their brains. So double education. So become an electrician who also have the AI then you're secured because the electricians, the nurses or whatever, these jobs will still be there. I think we can do a lot more AI. So if you're a smart kid, get both because then you can be unbeatable in this world. That's for 15 years old doesn't help the 20, 22 ones which are in the market. Second, uh, thing that I would say that I think I'm really interested in, I think it was one of the big, uh, four, uh, accounting companies they actually really released last week. I think 150 partners. Because they figure out, I don't need so many of the old ones. What I would really be scared would be to be down somewhere 40 ish. 40 ish. 40 plus minus 5 because those are the people I don't really need because then I can really get the kids coming in and they can get quicker these months and the kids have the AI tools the older don't want. But still this comes the fact that companies just have to dare to saying listen, I'm going to take the, that person who's been there 10 years and I'm going to remove it and put you know those five people and put the three AI kids here uh on that sense. So that's just giving the fact that I think that this is what will happen quite soon. So the 22 years old trust me you're going to be needed because you actually going to eat the positions of those who don't have the experience and seniority to be able to give that one. But, but, but they're going to get there. So, so, so, so that's it. And the final thing is become entrepreneur. Uh, if you don't get a job, don't stay at home, don't do this, uh, make sure you get some money somewhere, you know, go to do something really low, don't have to put in your CV and then start an entrepreneur. Think what you can really do meanwhile when you're waiting because then you're actually preparing yourself to be more on the market because the fact that the non AI people, non AI people those are the ones that are scared and they are scared to be very honest. And I Understand if you're 40 something and you know you, you hardly figured out what the digitalization is and you been quite a manual job and good luck. You can see what's happening, you can see the writing around the wall. So those are actually even more scared. So I think the mothers and the fathers of these 22 years old while they are frustrated their kids don't get anything they might be actually very smart story in that I have a good uh My oldest son's best friend who's becoming a doctor. He's now thinking which can specialize and his biggest parameter is what doctor will be least likely to be you know taken over by AI or where the job still thing and he doesn't want to come in Chirruk but even there robotics or whatever anyway but that's just, I find it very very I had a long talk with him and saying so what are you thinking and what's your matrix? He's by the Way totally AI. You know, he was AI before AI because that is his hobby. But. But just to give you an idea that I found it extremely fascinating that the doctor wasn't anymore thinking about what fascinates me, what do I want to do but saying, oh, where do I actually have a role to play as a human in the world and as a person who's AI native?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Now the final thing on this one is that I am worried, to be very honest with the junior ones, because youth employment is the worst thing you can get specifically brainy kids. And we have to find a solution for that one. The, uh, Swedes already a couple of years ago is the fact that until you're 28 you have a much less. Basically cost of the company is so low that it actually kind of pushed people to take the young people in. We need to find something that is going to make the young, young people overly easy to employ versus what they are because we need them to get the work market. They don't. You know, specifically Finland, when the pension system is such that you actually, you know, Denmark is a bit different. It's not that big hassle, but we need to ensure that that happens. Um, so in that sense I am worried about the youth unemployment as general and we have to find a way to give them an extra pass so they get through on that one. Uh, but as any, uh, you know, as any people, there's a great book about what Margaret Thatcher did about the whole uh, mining industry in UK and what happened now it's actually quite interesting what happened. These males never got a job, but their wives got a job. And so the company, uh, the family's income stay the same. But we need to ensure that we get as many people in all age levels to get an AI native as quickly as possible in order to ensure the maximum uh, effect we can have on this one. But as every time when you're in the break phase, it's humbled, it's unclear, it's this and that and it's whatever. So, uh, again I would be more worried if I'm 40 plus. Then get yourself an evening hobby to really understand if AI for the young kids. Uh, yes, do everything you can for time being. Make your own company on something, on AI Just do whatever interests you in order to keep filling your learnings on the that part. And then within a couple of years I can really see that we're going to start to fail the young ones. The final point on AI for me is, uh, I, I saw an article where somebody Said, oh, AI is going to make decision, make decision making so easy, don't fall into that trap. AI is going to make decision making even more difficult because Instead of having three versions, you can have 335 versions. You could do. And the AI is going to then tell you, but do this, do that, do whatever. But it's not going to be able to tell it to exactly where the situation is. So the decision making with AI is going to get more difficult. And that's why I think you need exactly as you said, the seniority with the juniority. But you have to keep on eye that you also learn these young people. The AI will not tell you the right decision. It will give you a better way of suggesting the possible decision. You still have to have guts and the analytic tools to make the decision.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that's very true. I mean the value of human judgment is probably just going to increase.

Speaker B: Um, and if you don't train it, what happens?

Speaker A: That's a problem, that's a challenge.

Speaker B: I have a daughter, final thing, I have a daughter who's actually doing math and technology which is behind the AI, understand the AI, all kind of this and things. And she's also uh, she's about to get ready, uh, um, um, uh, with her thesis, but she's also now doing uh, um, a tutoring. And she says that she's so lucky that when she was in high school she still had to do this manual. Now when she's starting to try to teach people who don't understand who's studying AI, who don't understand the mathematics and then he says, oh, but I have to go back on my 9th grade books to explain to these people how does it really work because they just learned to solve the things, but they haven't learned how the fundamentals structure things. Listen, this is a 26 year old girl talking about people who are 22 and then suddenly you really see the black side of AI that you haven't understood. You know, it's like building the house when you're in the fifth floor but your fundament is crappy. Um, and that's another challenge. So there's a lot of challenges coming out of this. We'll solve them. Uh, but it's a challenge. And one thing is putting the kids back on paper. And in a math exam is about paper. So you actually have to, and not just giving the answer, but showing how the hell did you get to that answer in order to force you to get the structure right. So uh, a lot of possibilities, a lot of challenges. Exciting.

Speaker A: I think that's a really good way to end, um, our conversation. Lots of problems. Lots of problems. Lots of potential dark clouds on the horizons. But I think that's probably been the case for most of human history.

Speaker B: Absolutely.

Speaker A: We're living in a good time. And thanks, uh, again for coming on. Best, um, of luck. I think you probably have your hands full for this year, uh, with, you know, a lot of geopolitical stuff still to be. To be sorted out. Um, but, yeah, anyway, thank you so much. Thank you for the work that you're doing on behalf of Finnish companies, Nordic companies, and, uh, let's do this again in about a year's, uh, time or so. And, uh, let's try that one. Unless we've, uh, been replaced by AI.

Speaker B: Maybe we send AI robots to do that one.

Speaker A: Yeah, you could send one. I'll have my stand in. Anyway, it's. Thank you so much, Sana.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you for listening. You can find all episodes of the Growth pod on Spotify, YouTube and Apple Podcasts.