How Leaders Build Organizations That Get Better at Change

Agility is when an organization is not only able to make a successful change in one area, but in making that change, the organization gets better at changing overall. Welcome to the Shift Code, a podcast about leadership, transformation and innovation. On the occasion of the publication of the Manifesto for Enterprise Agility by PMI Agile alliance, we're going to focus specifically on transformation and agility, defined as the ability to adapt at scale without losing coherence. I'm really delighted to welcome Julia Dahr from the Boston Consulting Group. Welcome, Julia. Thank you for being with us. Thank you, Pierre. And congratulations on the manifesto. Thank you. So, Julia, you lead BCG's people and organization Practice in North America. You've spent your career working with CEOs across industries to redesign how decisions get made, how organizations operate, and how transformation actually sticks. You wrote a book called the Decision Makers Playbook, and you have a new book actually coming up, How Change Really Works. Very impatient to read it. So you've seen all of this very close and at scale, and I'd like to talk to you about how change actually works and how agility matters from that standpoint. So may I ask you first, Julia, what has fundamentally changed in how organizations need to operate in the last 10 to 20 years? What's different? One of the things, Pierre, that I think is extraordinary is what in fact is not different. So more than half a century ago, we had the first set of observations that making successful change in the organization, that is getting people to do things differently, consistently and systematically, was very often not very successful. We had a set of data points from a range of places, BCG included, PMI included, that suggested that many more. More than half of change efforts in organizations failed. And by failed, we mean did not deliver the objectives that had been set out at the beginning. And that's an extraordinarily high number. What's even more extraordinary about it, what has not really changed, is that it hasn't really improved over time. We continue to find it very difficult to successfully, not necessarily make change, but to successfully sustain change in organizations. And that might not be totally surprising because any of us who have tried to make a significant shift in our personal lives or do something really differently and outside of the professional context would acknowledge that that can often be very hard. But what we have not done enough of inside organizations is continue to address the human factors that make change successful or not, and that allow organizations not just to change once, but actually to get really good at changing. Yeah, it's interesting because we say at PMI that it's less about planning and more about building, being built for change. Right. So do you think leaders typically underestimate that? I think they do. And sometimes we even know that we do as it's happening. One of the experiences that prompted myself and my co authors Christy and Phil to write this book was of course with organizations that we work with, we follow them often for a very long period of time or you are in touch years or even decades afterwards. And very often when I would talk to CEOs or Chief Transformation officers or chief operations officers or chief people officers about a particular change, they would so often say something like, you know, we didn't really invest enough in change management or we talked a lot about it, but we never really ensured that people were able to prioritize the change we were asking them to make or, or to invest in learning a new way of doing things or hold them accountable to the successful change. We didn't do enough on making the how of change successful. Basically I had the experience where I said, you know what? No one has ever come back and said to me, you know what, Julia? In that program, I think we did too much on change, that there was actually just too much support for people like too much investment in making the change successful. And so successfully moving from that phase of change of saying the first thing you have to do is decide to change, plan and prepare to change and then actively start to change. And until you are really doing something differently in the context of day to day work in the organization, you haven't even really begun to change. But, and I wonder if you have this feeling too sometimes, Pierre, there is so much effort, it's very difficult to plan a change as well. Sometimes by the time leaders get to the end of a planning phase, they say, oh, okay, now I'm done. I hope someone else is able to take this forward because this part was very effortful and exhausting for me. I think we all have a tendency as leaders to focus on the what and delegate the how in a way because we're already moving on to the next topic and next thing. Right. And that's where indeed we dropped the ball a little bit. There's a tendency. Yeah. One of the things that I really hope comes out of more of these public conversations about change and of course out of the book, is much greater appreciation for, for the how of change. So as you say, of course there is a why of the purpose of the organization, the kind of what of the strategy and the value agenda to the organization. But a doubt also seems really unambiguously clear from several decades of data that the difference between success and failure lies in the how of the human beings in the organization. And if there's a perception from some leaders that the how is somehow beneath them, or it's not very glamorous, or it's not very interesting, or that's something that someone else does, I hope that starts to go away. The leadership teams have more respect, more attention to the how, more energy for the idea that that is the reason that they will be successful or not, but also a very important place to reduce the risk of and how do you actually advise them to concretely do that? Because we have a lot of project professionals who actually focus on the how. But then indeed, if the sponsors, if the executive team has already moved on, what's the advice you give them to keep making sure that change actually happens? Beyond having designed a beautiful transformation plan, let me talk about three principles that some of my favorites that come from behavioral science that I think leaders can use immediately in order to be more are successful to improve the odds of being successful in change. The first, we call it get true agreement, not false alignment. So in that planning phase, there is always a risk that we have a set of conversations, perhaps you and I even review the same proposal. And at the end of that discussion, we say, oh, we are aligned. But it's totally possible that in that context, you and I, they had a very different understanding of what would happen next, of what Julia would do, what Pierre would do, how those would interact across the organization, and really forcing a leadership team to say, what is it that we have agreed to do, what type of change? And not just we're generally aligned, and we hope to figure it out as we go along. And that can feel like a challenging statement, especially when you talk about agility. But I actually think that makes agility much more likely because it helps with specificity upfront. So that's number one is get true agreement. The second one is increase the amount of agency in the organization, not just the involvement that people have in change. And so perhaps let me ask it this way. Have you ever in your life assembled IKEA furniture, flat pack furniture? 100%? Yes. I mean, it's not my favorite activity, trust me, but I do. So one of the things that's remarkable about assembling IKEA furniture is it is not that enjoyable in the moment. Often it is confusing and complicated, and there are always too many parts or not enough parts. However, and this is some brilliant research by Mike Norton, who is a professor at the Harvard Business school once you have assembled it. People disproportionately love their IKEA furniture. Of course they keep it for a long time, they value it greatly because they built it. And I think taking that same approach into making change in an organization, which is allowing people not just to feel as though they were involved or well communicated to, but they actually had the opportunity to shape some important part of the change agenda is really crucial. That doesn't mean that everyone can have decision rights on everything. But there are plenty of places where individuals and teams can make choices that would give them much more agency, make it much more likely that the change works in the context of someone's day to day job, of the other things that they have to deliver. And then the third is to continue to pay attention to the idea of momentum in an organization. So it seems reasonable to say in most contexts for most of us there will never be enough time, there will probably never be enough money, there will usually not be enough leadership attention for everything that we want to do, we'll always be constrained. However, increasing the amount of energy and carefully managing the energy for a particular change and for changing in general in the organization is a really important tool in the change leaders toolkit. And people often want to talk about change fatigue. I think of creating the right level of momentum as the antidote to change fatigue. So it means are we actually unfolding a plan that allows people to feel a sense of progress? Are we celebrating at the right moments? And are we deliberately pausing and allowing people to rest, reflect regather strength to celebrate the endings as well as just moving on to the next beginning? That's how you fight the change fatigue to making sure that people understand the actual change like things that have been achieved. Exactly. And so it can be that you spotlight wins for people. It can be and this is quite important psychologically, behaviourally. Continuing to build people's belief that they're able to do a very difficult thing. So to reflect on the ways in which in the past we, the organization or the individual has successfully achieved, achieved and delivered something very difficult. The third is sometimes a way to get more momentum is there are teams or individuals who are running further ahead than everyone else, continuing to find chances to stretch that team without other people feeling bad about themselves. And their level of progress is also really important. But another thing that you can do, and I could imagine for our listeners, we've all had the experience of being part of something that started very energetically and a CEO said, you know, this is my top priority. And six months later it just sort of fizzles out. It doesn't get canceled, but fewer and fewer resources. What used to be very important, perhaps like review meetings for this agenda, People start to say, we don't need those so much anymore. It's just kind of the team is now pushing it ahead. The team is probably not pushing it ahead. Something has changed there, and it is that that agenda has run out of momentum. And that's because the CEO is not pushing it enough anymore. It lacks consistency over time. Or what's the real root cause? It could be all kinds of things, but one of the things that we think very frequently happens in that situation is that we don't invest enough in defining the rituals and routines that will give that change sufficient momentum. And so a really good ritual might be that the team charged with this transformation agenda or this change meets at the same time on the same day every single week. No alterations, no exceptions. A ritual might also be that that meeting always starts by celebrating successes and inviting people to celebrate and recognize successes. So those are well social, socialized across the team. And we're often very quick to say, oh, people will figure that out, or people will define the right cadence. And of course that's possible. But actually, considering that one of the things that change leaders, transformation leaders, project leaders can do in organizations, that is a real kindness, a service to people, is to say, here's what we think that prescription should be, here's how we believe that set of rituals and practices should unfold. Let us take a little bit of the cognitive energy away from you of deciding, should we meet this week? How. What will it look like that giving people structure can actually be a gift to them? Yeah. So we spoke about the things that we should do, other things that leaders typically do wrong, either misdiagnose or underestimate, make wrong assumptions or have the wrong behaviors. What are the pitfalls, the things that you should really think about when you lead transformation? And you should really avoid that you've seen too often. One of the pitfalls is under investing in using stories and symbols really well in the organization to connect people to an overall agenda or a set of experiences. And the mindset shift that I think CEOs leaders can make is to say, hey, if I think for a moment about how I would like our most important customer, our very best client, to feel and to behave and to think in a particular context, what are the things that I would do in order to help them make that shift? And. And there are a whole set of things that companies that are brilliantly customer sensitive end up doing really well. But one of the things that distinguishes them is they tend to tell really good stories that invite people to understand the future that they are building towards. So often in organizations we say, oh, we have a case for change, for example, or we have a change narrative, but it is often extremely grounded in, say, the financial value, even if there are a large number of people in the company who won't necessarily benefit from the impact of that, or it is too complicated because you say, oh, we write this case for change about how we are really moving our entire company towards a much more AI first direction. And then we have to add something in about five other priorities so that people feel they were reflected on the page, which is ultimately quite confusing to people experiencing the story. So one of the things that we invite leaders to do is say, number one, just generally remember that humans are highly motivated by stories. We are fairly unmotivated, all of us, by statistics. So the more stories that we can tell, the more that those are repeatable, the better. But the second is get really clear on the type of story that you are telling and make sure that's really sharp to people. And we say there are basically only three types of story. In all organizational change, there's threat like we must change or we will die. Fitness. We need to continuously get better at what we are doing. And then there is destiny. We are going to become who we were always meant to be. And Pierre, I know what you're thinking. Like most people would say, ah, I would like to be a destiny story, please. That sounds delightful compared to the others. But allowing the leadership team to say what is actually true about our change? Is it a threat? Is it that we need more fitness? Are we working towards our destiny? Because that will make it logical, coherent, repeatable for the individuals who hear it and who you need to then ask to do something differently. That's quite interesting. We usually insist on defining a clear purpose. Do you think that it is always needed or in some cases, to elaborate on what you just said, we don't even need to do that. I think that part of defining, agreeing, making sure that you and I share an understanding of that purpose, is actually totally essential. Because otherwise you and I can both do a lot of good things and end up in a completely different direction. What do you think? Does that usually end up being an important difference? Difference between success and failure? No, we absolutely believe that without purpose, clarity of purpose, it's almost impossible, Especially in a world that is transforming very fast. Right? With a lot of external Pressure, it's difficult to find your way. And we need the teams to find their own ways within a certain strategy and direction. But it's only possible if they understand the purpose and if people adhere to this purpose. But I still like your idea of when you go through transformation, to really be honest with, why are we doing that? Is it because, indeed, we are going to die if we're not doing it, or is it really because we have an aspiration of what we want to become? Or is it because, in fact, we're just talking about improving incrementally, which sometimes is good as well. Right. Because sometimes your company is doing fine, you have a clear purpose, you're doing well, but you still want to do better. And it's probably a good idea to try and not create a narrative that is extremely stressful when it doesn't need to be, or very aspirational when it doesn't need to be that either. Because, in fact, we're happy with the purpose we have already and where we want to go. Right. So I think it's good advice. I don't yet have data behind this, but my personal opinion is that, in fact, most change and transformation stories in organizations are fitness stories. Yes, absolutely. There's nothing to be ashamed of in that the idea of saying we wish to continuously run a better, more disciplined organization that allows our people to focus on only the things that are most important, that delivers highest value to shareholders who have trusted us with their money, that is an act of leadership. And pretending that your agenda is something other than what it is ends up being very confusing. Yeah, but because for CEOs, it's usually more rewarding to show a very different vision. And sometimes it's needed, sometimes it is not needed. You've already set the right direction, you're doing fine, you're growing fine, but you can do better. And fitness is what you do most of the time. Right. Changing course is once in a while, because if you change course all the time, then you're losing everyone. Right. So that's not going to work either. And you risk that people end up saying, it is impossible for me to do what you want me to do, which is to make good quality judgment calls and decisions about the highest priority, because those seem to change all the time. That's right. Yeah. So we do have different situations. Let's elaborate a little bit on that. So we're speaking a lot about agility right now. Could you tell me what is, in your opinion, real agility at an enterprise scale? Like, what does it look like. For me, the definition of really high quality agility behaviors and capability in an organization is the following. Agility is when an organization is not only only able to make a successful change in one area, but in making that change, the organization gets better at changing overall. So they become more and more skilled, like more and more comfortable, more and more confident at changing. So you were successful in the specific objective, but the ability to achieve that or a similar objective the next time also goes way up. So what tells you in five minutes when you look at an organization that it's not agile. Funny thing that I think happens often when I start to work with an organization is people will very often say something along the lines of we're not very good at changing or we don't do a lot of change. We don't really have an approach to change. We might change a lot of things, but we don't really have a systematic approach to changing. And in general, not always, but in general, that's mostly a mindset. If in a large competitive economy your organization has survived for any number of years and continued to be successful and growing, you have changed many times. The people who were not able to change, the organizations who were not able to change, did not survive. And so a mindset that says we are not very good at changing is one thing that holds organizations back from being successful. So that's number one for me is organizations that say, ah, we don't really do change. Well, even if they have a. You actually see a lot of that these days still all the time. I would say the vast majority have the mindset of saying perhaps. Of course we know we need to change. We've been told that changing is very important. We do not believe this organization is good at changing. And you're talking about CEOs or C suite speaking like this, or you're talking even down the organization. We gather data on both. So does the C Suite think this organization is good at changing? And does the rest of the organization have the same perception? And while the C Suite has a much higher appetite for change, in general they're more open to change. The assessment of the organization's willingness to change is actually very common between CEOs, C Suite and the rest of the organization. But is it more a reflection of a general frustration with the speed of change more than substance? In fact, my own diagnosis is that we have all been part of changes that were disappointing to us, that were not successful. We started out this conversation by talking about the rates of failed change in organization. It's Almost inevitable that we've been part of one. Often you might be in the middle of one if you work at a large organization or had one experience like that very recently. So that obviously is a frustration that people have in their mind. When you start talking about the next change, they say, ah, here we we go again. And I think that we still suffer from a psychological blindness. In behavioural science, we call this the planning fallacy. A good way to think about this bias is to say, how hard could it possibly be bias? We just think things will be much easier than they are. We expect them to go faster, to run into less difficulty than they in fact do. Continuing to help organizations and individuals, organizations especially, overcome that planning fallacy, set appropriate expectations upfront for how change really happens is a very important part of what I do day to day of encouraging people to ask at the beginning, is it likely that we are going to be able to make this specific change with the set of resources that we have and what would make it more probable for us to be successful in doing that? Because I do think that one of the other things, even as I say in lots of our research, people cynical, skeptical about their own organization's ability to make change. A really good piece of news is that people are actually very compassionate. They said, we know that big change is difficult. We understand that things go wrong. We generally want to help. We expect honesty from leaders about what is happening and clarity about what they are requesting. But we're not ignorant about the difficulty of change bridging some of that gap for all of us of saying, yeah, let's acknowledge that most of us have been part of a failed change effort in the past. We have a goal that this specific change is different from those experiences. And here are the ways in which specifically it will be different. Can allow people to build some of that consensus from the beginning. Yeah, I like to shift to decision making because a lot of transformations also fail or are slowed down because it's not very clear how decisions are made or because there is a disagreement basically on how decisions should be made. So let's talk first about the C Suite, right, The CEO of the C Suite, Is it that difficult for them to let go of making all the decisions? Typically, most CEOs will say, I want to make fewer decisions, right? And sometimes the behavior does not suggest that that is true. And sometimes when you ask them about it, they will say, but that is because they're not consistently seeing other people in the organization catch the ball. They carry an agenda forward. Who's right? According to you in general, is it the CEO who really, truly would like to see more decisions made elsewhere, but they feel like every time they don't make the decisions it's going the wrong direction? Or is it basically a bias that you have when you are a CEO and you are used to make decisions and they feel it goes faster and better when you do it? It's just like you just can't help it. I think the root cause of that frustration that maybe everyone in the situation we just described is the following, which is, did we upfront, really truly agree on what we were doing and who was going to be asked to do it? The number one thing that we could do in all situations to make that easier is to continue to ask who has the decision rights and not do anything until the decision rights are clear. A really dangerous form of that would be someone who says, or a CEO who says, well, Julia, you have the decision right, but also obviously you must keep Pierre and Catherine and Andrea and Stefano in the loop as you go. At that point, it is not totally obvious that I did have the decision rights. And at what point Pierre, for example, is entitled to stop me continuing, continuing, continuing to say who has the decision rights? One of my absolute favorite clients at the start of every meeting, truly every meeting they say, okay, like what is the topic of the agenda? Who has the decision rights in this meeting? If we can't answer that question specifically or that person is not in the room, we say, okay, then what's the point of the meeting? Let's go away, come back when we have the decision maker in the room. So I think that's number one. Continue. There is never a bad moment to ask the question who has the decision rights? And to respect the decision rights of the role, the individual who has them. The second thing that I think becomes challenging and this is where some CEOs can struggle with getting the right level of agency speed within the team is hoping that a lot of the ambiguity of what our agenda gets figured out along the way. And this is where I think your goal of defining and agreeing a really clear purpose upfront. Like if we have done enough at the beginning to articulate, here is where we are going. This is what I expect to see. This is what I don't expect to see. This is how I would like to be involved. Appropriately contracting with one another is another really helpful intervention. And I think then the third is a huge constraint on agility in an organization is where we have completely impractically resourced a project. We have given it to someone who also had a very busy day job and three other top priorities and it was unlikely that they were ever going to be successful. The founder of bcgu, Bruce Henderson, in some of his writings says if you create an initiative or a project that is impossible, that's a real failure of leadership and management. It's disrespectful of the organization's resources. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You often refer to a concept that you call choice architecture. What is that? A really wonderful way to think about choice architecture. And if any of our listeners have not read the brilliant book Nudge by Cass Sunstein and Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, they give a really beautiful an articulate overview of it. Choice architecture is the idea that where we need to create an environment in which we want other people or need other people to do something, designing appropriately the context in which they will do that is a really important job of a leader. Or you could think about yourself as a choice architect or, or a decision architect. Let me give you a really simple example as a way in which we are often want to help people cope better with an overwhelming number of decisions or an overwhelming amount of information. And so think about a really simple experiment in a supermarket that says I want to sell more jam. And they say, well, probably the best way to do that is to give people as many possible kinds of jam as we can. Think about more than 30 types. Another option would be to say okay, we need to funnel people towards jam, but 30 seems like it might be an awful lot for people to cope with and decide. We know that generally speaking, too much choice makes people. What's your favorite? Paralyzes people, right? So in the end it's not going to work. You become totally overwhelmed. And so an architecture that says let me give you two options or three options or in the case of the jam, six options is much more likely to be successful than infinitely many options. I think about the same is true in an organization. And so let me give you a good example of choice architecture or think about this as transformation architecture in an organization. I could imagine that it happens a lot to your listeners where someone says we are going to talk to you about the following. We've set up a meeting to talk to you about the following and we just wanted to get your thoughts on whatever the topic is on this particular initiative. That's really poor architecture of the conversation, but also the choices. I don't know what my role in this situation is. I actually don't know if I am giving feedback that will be Listened to or not, if you are asking for my approval, if you're just meeting with me because you felt that was a step in the process that needed to be followed so that I would not get offended considering that of what is the experience of change that people are going to have in an organization, leaders, but much more often individual employees, is what choice architecture looks like for organizations and transformations. Yeah, it's interesting because it actually goes both ways. I am as a CEO, very often asked to give my views on something without any proper choice architecture either. So I don't know what people are expecting. Do they need my input? Like in general, do they need me to make a decision? What are the options that they're really. What is the trade off? It's actually dangerous because I could even sometimes if I'm not careful, express a view that will then be used. And it is very dangerous because I might not really have thought about it in the right way. And that's a very important power for CEOs to be cautious about. You have to use your opinions very carefully because I could imagine you might say, oh, this team, they came to me, they asked me for their thoughts on something. I gave them a whole set of thoughts. But also it seems like they had a lot of experts on the team. You come back six months later and people say, oh, but this was the direction that Pierre gave to us. That happens all the time. It happens all the time. And of course there is an opportunity for the leader, for all of us in those conversations, but for the leader to say, okay, I'm going to bring some of the architecture here. And anytime you hear a leader say, seven minutes into a discussion, how can I help? That might be a sign that there has not been enough choice architecture so far. However, it can also mean saying, how do we make it really easy and attractive for individuals to participate in the change the way that we want them to. And so, for example, if we know that we really need to train people on a new system, it would seem not very logical to make people sign up, identify the time where they are going to do it, make it a fairly boring and unattractive training for them, not allow them to translate that into the context of their own job. We would probably try to build some community around it, sign them up automatically, prepare them for what they are going to experience, follow up with them afterwards. And those of our listeners who think a lot about customer experience or even agile ceremonies, this will feel really familiar, but we don't do nearly enough of it in the context of actually the day to day work of managing a project. Yeah, I think that's very good thoughts for project professionals. Really think about how you architect the choices that you have, people you ask them to make. Right. It's pretty good. I want to spend a little bit of time on the Enterprise Agility Manifesto. So it's structured just like the manifesto for software development. It is structured with values and principles. There are four values here. So let's talk about the values. We don't have the time today to go through the principles. The four values, they express a tension, right? Purpose versus planning, enterprise versus functional areas or silos, adaptability versus efficiency. That's an interesting one. How do you trade off between being super efficient or more resilient and human versus processes? If you think about those four values, so purpose, planning, enterprise, silos, adaptability versus efficiency, human version versus process. Which one would you feel is the one that you are the most interested in yourself? And maybe the one where you feel companies or C suites struggle the most? Maybe it's the same one. I think it is the fourth. This question of humans versus processes and I love the way that you've described it as a tension in the manifesto because we would say it actually shouldn't really be that way. The whole purpose of a process is to help a human and so often it ends up being exactly the other way around. Yes, I agree with that. And in your mind, so what's the importance of processes? Because I know you're focused on humans, right? That's exactly what you do all day long. But you work for the bcg, so it's not exactly an organization that is against processes. So how do you design processes that work for the humans? I'm very much not against processes at all. Processes are a gift to us in organizations and respect for good quality. Process and design of a process is unbelievably important. I think it actually becomes even more important as we think about continuing collaboration between the humans and technology. In the context of AI, it would be really easy to say our process becomes less important. I disagree. Elaborate on that. Interested in that. Because what we need to do in all cases and the service that a process does is to say the whole reason that we have a process is because we have a goal. And so that can be to produce something, it can be to decide something, it can be to move a set of resources around an organization and it can be to plan or prepare for something else that is going to happen. Processes exist because our, our human capacity to consistently, deliberately, safely do things well is Limited processes are there to help us. The best way to think about them is the equivalent of a pre flight checklist for pilots, which is also, by the way, perhaps one of the most important processes that we have. We never say, ah, a pilot eventually gets to the point where the pre flight checklist is not important, where they have just mastered the craft of taking off an aircraft. No, of course not. Run the process every time because we know that it makes the operation safer, but also decision making easier for the humans. I think the more that project leaders can say to themselves, where do we have a process that is supportive of the goals that we have? Where do our processes get in the way? And if our processes get in the way, why are we respecting the process at the expense of the humans? Let's adapt the process. But on the other hand, because processes are incredibly important because sometimes it is difficult to get us to consistently comply with the process. Another really good question, and we should be asking ourselves as change leaders, is how do I make it enjoyable to participate in the process? How do I make it convenient and attractive? As opposed to only saying how do I punish people who don't follow the process? Which can be a very so what are your ideas of how do you make processes enjoyable? That's an interesting idea. Let me give you a couple of real world examples that we use our clients all the time. Number one is actually just celebrating each step in the process and that can be incredibly trivial if you think about that can be a message on the screen that says congratulations, you have submitted, you followed the process, you followed the process, you've submitted your first round round of requests into capital planning or so on. That's number one. Number two is continuously reflecting, so inviting feedback along the way, not just this is annoying, but as I am thinking about it, this could be better. And so continually getting feedback from real users about the process and making changes in response to that feedback. The final one, which I think is true for so many things, but especially in processes, is celebrate the end of a process. The fact that a process has successfully run all the way through its conclusion, especially for really large enterprise processes, is an accomplishment. And so continuing to acknowledge and recognize that, but also say this cycle of the process has come to an end and here are the results, gives people a chance psychologically to get closure, take stock, take a deep breath and begin again. And so celebrate, reflect continuously improve along the way, but also make sure that there is a deliberate ending. Finally, I do think the more that CEO senior leaders can continue to talk about the importance of process. Not the idea that we should have more processes or we need processes because humans are fragile, but how do we have processes that serve human beings, that unlock the potential of human beings? The more that we can make outstanding processes a bit more glamorous in our world too, which I think they deserve. Yeah, that's also very good advice for profit professionals who very often have to sell processes that people don't love naturally. Yeah, it is a tough sell, I think, to show up among a set of other priorities and be like, hello, I'm Julia. I'm the process Excellence person. I know you're all so excited to meet me, and that is a shame because of the extraordinary potential trapped in that role, in that capability in organizations. And so if we could all, collectively and through the manifesto, build a little bit more love for the humans and also a bit more love for the process, I think that would be a real success. Okay, wonderful. That's a big goal, big purpose for us. Just a few quick questions. Looking ahead about the next decade of leaders, right? What do you think will make a big difference? Like what are the qualities, the behaviors, maybe the skills that will make a big difference in the next 10 years for leadership? Number one is this really deep appreciation of the skills required to achieve behavior change at scale among human beings. And that's more than just the quality of empathy, that it's actually saying there's not just an art or a practice, but also a science to systematically changing behavior in our organizations and getting more of the results that we want to see. So the more that the CEO also evolves into a chief Behavioral Officer role, I think the better. The second is helping an organization focus while allowing individuals to pursue multiple potential purposes and paths and careers within the organization. It seems very obvious that the talent profile, the career profile of everyone employed today and those yet to be employed will be totally different than it has been in the past 20 years and even prior to that. And so helping the organization focus on a short term goal while recognizing how very diverse individual talent journeys will be, is incredibly, incredibly important. And then I think the third is being able to be a really effective steward of change. So you won't be the person who makes all the decisions, you certainly cannot be the person who executes all of those decisions. But being the guardian of the how and saying one of the ways in which this organization will achieve its advantage and sustain that advantage is through really brilliant execution of the how. We great care for the how and for the human beings who deliver the how. Thank you so much. Julia, thank you for your advice and thank you for being with us today. Thank you very much. P.