Hey, this is Eva, and you're listening to this week's episode
of the In Between Tech and Trust podcast.
The podcast when we dive into conversations with experts at
the intersection of technology and trust and look into their
mutual influence on each other and how we can build and foster
trust in a world when technology evolves faster than we sometimes
can. Follow up this episode we dive
deep into the intersection of how technology shapes
organization and how it also influences collaboration.
And for this relevant exchange, I have Doctor Zeman Baglam as a
guest with me in in conversation.
And Zeman brings many years of experience and background at the
intersection of strategy, organizational development, of
enabling teams at exactly the progress and sometimes even
friction points of how organizations need to evolve
need to be a cater to. Because, amongst others, Zeman
has founded the Accompany the Dive, which accompanies
organizations at their step into a new era when they look into
economical. Success at the.
Intersection of humanity and also moving exactly that
forward. And in our exchange, we dive
deep into what it means to incorporate technology into
collaboration, how stable or flexible organizations can or
should be, what organizational design is required and need to
be fostered, the six different lenses of intelligence.
And Zemon explains quite tangibly of how AI only caters
to one part of the intelligence that we as humans have 6 of, and
what the implications of it are. And we also exchange on how
trust is an anchor and sometimes also a design measure of
bringing and moving people together and organizations
forward. Hi, Zeman, and welcome to the In
Between Tech and Trust podcast. Hi everyone, thanks for having
me. It's such a like pleasure to
talk to you about the intersection of organizational
development, transformation and technology today.
And before we dive into our exchange on exactly that
intersection, I wanted to know that when I now throw tech and
trust into our conversation, what does it mean to you in the
context of organizational transformation in particular?
Yeah, well, I'm an organization developer with a pretty systemic
background, so I might refer to systems theory here and there
just as a reference. And I think system theory can be
quite useful to look at in two in two different dimensions.
A it can help to really define what trust actually means.
So what is our definition of trust?
And B it also shows us what trust in social systems actually
might be needed for. And if you if you read famous
Nicholas Lumen, so the the godfather of systems theory, he
basically says that that trust reduces social complexity.
Is that so? Yeah, there's, there's a book
which is actually called Trust As the Reduction of Social
Complexity or something like that.
So to, to put it in a simplified way, trust is, is from this
perspective, trust is necessary in order to be able to live your
life actually. So we have to to trust everyday
trust in other people, trust in, in social systems like
organisations or institutions, because our everyday experience
in our everyday life is so, so full of contingency and
unpredictability. And if you apply this to, to
organizational transformation, you could say trust in
transformation is something like the felt permission to stay in
motion under, under uncertainty. So without pretending that we
already know the perfect answer. So in complex environments, you
just don't get certainty first and then you act.
But it's rather that you act and you learn and you integrate and
you iterate and so on. And that's why I love this, this
stance, which we use a lot in our organization development
processes, this stance of safe enough to try.
So we are not chasing for perfection also not in in
transformation processes, but we are choosing the next step that
is responsible and that doesn't ignore essential risks,
including risks for people, for the organization and for the
future. And you said something so
tangible and that is to use it to stay in motion and what we
experience all of us, I guess, every day, but also in
particular for the past couple of years that there's so much
motion. And the interesting part at the
intersection of organization is that organizations are built to
provide stability, right? So you could also say that in
some sort you and your team, you provide building bridges between
those structures and like the motion and possibilities that we
want to throw ourselves into and provide the flexibility to
encounter them. How do you see sorry?
That's sorry that that's one of the great paradoxes which
organisations always have to solve because we, I mean, we
sometimes have the illusion that we, that we live in somehow
stable environments. But of course, if you really
dive into the texture of life, you will find out that there is
no such thing like general stability.
There's only temporary stability against the background of a
general instability. So that's life.
If, if, if there wasn't instability wouldn't be life, it
would be death. And, and at the same time, of
course, that's where the paradox lies in.
At the same time, organisations of course have to create
clarity. They have to create alignment,
they have to create accountability.
And this is exactly what, what, what I would say substantial
organization development is about to to bridge this paradox
between staying in motion, between being adaptable, between
dealing competently with complexity, dealing competently
with the complexity of life, and at the same time, of course,
creating clarity, creating accountability, creating
structure, knowing that it's always only a temporary
structure and that it will be a subject to change in six months,
in eight months, in 12 months. And if you're now an
organization that has built a heritage over some time, and if
you're faced as we all are with the like task changing
developments of technology and don't, let's not go into the
politics kind of route, but stay with technology for a little
while. How can we also make sure that
we include the OR translate the heritage that we come with into
the futures that we still build? Is there an approach that you
can recommend to encounter it with?
Yeah, it's a it's a big question.
It's especially in the times we live in.
So I I often describe this space as a space between the the not
anymore and the not yet. And, and sometimes this is more
paradigmatic or more more fundamental and sometimes it's
just the next step to take. But this is the, the I would say
this is always the space where the the old logic still runs.
The old recipes are still applied, feeling and sensing
that they just don't make much sense anymore and that they're
not helpful anymore maybe. And at the same time, the new
logic is still forming. The the new logic is not not
there yet. And, and she could have the
hypothesis that we, we live through these kind of times
quite a lot these days where old recipes are crumbling and old
systems are crumbling and falling apart and the new
systems are just not built yet. And in this space, coming back
to trust, trust, of course, is, is kind of a rich material, I
would say on various levels, actually, maybe, maybe, maybe on
at least 4 levels. So it's it's trust in the
process, which is directly connected to trust in emergence,
I would say, which is connected to trust in intuition,
individual, but also collectively.
And the fourth level is maybe rather about maintaining
confidence as a sign of self trust.
So in these in between situations, we are always asked
to change the rules while still playing the game, right.
And this is kind of a again, a paradox situation because there
there is no pause button, there is no master plan.
So we, we have to rebuild and we have to apply new rules to
invent new rules while still playing the old, the old game.
And, and that's of course very can be very exhausting.
So trust, I would say on the first level, trust, trust in the
process. Trust is the capacity of the
capacity to, to keep going anyway and, and to experiment
responsibly and to stay in dialogue and not to collapse
back into control just because uncertainty rises, rises,
because uncertainty will be, will always be there, right.
And then secondly, in those in between spaces, answers do not
pre exist. So they they emerge in the
process. That's pretty related to to the
first level level, I would say. So we have to dare to to stay
present long enough. And you could say that that in
these situations, you maybe you need an extra portion of trust
in the assumption and the hypothesis that answers will
show themselves while moving forward.
And and this also points to the to the level of trusting your
intuition. I think the the intuitive muscle
is is 1, which is highly needed in in these days.
And as I said, it's not only about individual intuition, but
but about something which you could call collective intuition.
Maybes the management thinker Peter Couzer.
He once was asked how how do people deal with deal with
complexity and he differentiate differentiated 4 four ways of
dealing with complexity. First, ignoring complexity, just
pretending it's not there. The second, trivializing
complexity. So just to break it down into
simple linear cause and effect chains again, the third way
would be trial and error, which is already slightly better just
to to iterate to learn. And the fourth way he, he said
in, in his point of view, that's the the most promising 1 is
actually using your intuition. And then he said, but not your
individual and intuition because this is prone to, to failure
again, but to create social spaces and social fields where
something like a collective intuition can emerge.
Highly interesting questions how to build spaces and how to build
social fields where collective intuition emerges.
And you've now developed a new method called the Stellar
approach, also for organizational development,
where you look into systems humanity, but also the
regeneration part. It's like this intuition part
across teams moving away from the individual to like an
organizational view. Is that part of that?
And like in general, could you walk us through of how you like
approach to come up with that method and how you apply it?
Yeah, of course. Yeah.
I mean, we founded our company, The Dive with the purpose that
with all our activities we want to to contribute to an economic
system or to an economy which which serves life like life as a
whole process. And of course there are various
dimensions connected to that. But but one dimension actually
is of course the question of how are how do we deliver our
services and how are our business models designed and to
which extent are we really able to deal competently with
interdependence? Because we are all
interdependent not only from human beings but also from from
non human beings. Is that where the intuition part
then comes into play again of where we how we encounter also
these in betweens or connectiveness?
Partly it's an it's, it's not an either or it's, it's, it's a
both end. I mean, I don't want to
devaluate cognitive intelligence or rational intelligence.
It's also needed, but it's not the only thing which is needed.
So I sometimes differentiate between and that's a model which
which I haven't invented, I just developed it further.
I sometimes differentiate between 6:00 plus one
intelligences or 6 plus one ways of knowing and four of them
apply to every human being, which is cognitive intelligence,
emotional intelligence, intuitive intelligence and
somatic intelligence like the embodied intelligence.
And then this is still pretty much human centered, to be
honest, these these are still pretty much like human
intelligences. And then there's also, of
course, something which you could call ecological
intelligence. So also the non human beings,
like the living non human beings, they also are
intelligent. They just speak another, a
different language. And then there's the sixth one,
which would be something like a relational intelligence, like
how do we relate to other human beings, but also how do we
relate to to other non human beings.
And the cognitive intelligence is one part of that.
And that's very, very important. But it's like I said, it's not
the only one. And of course we have developed
cultural patterns during past centuries and decades, decades
and centuries, which kind of emphasizes our rational muscle
and our cognitive and that it's pretty pretty much and over
emphasizes that, that part of yeah, of how we, how we proceed.
And of course then there is like the, that's where I said 6 + 1.
Then there's the artificial artificial intelligence.
And now we're coming to technology.
And that's interesting to map kind of the artificial
intelligence to the six intelligences, which I mentioned
before, because actually, if you really look closely to what
artificial intelligence does, it only plays a role in this field
of rational and cognitive intelligence.
And all the other intelligences are just emulated.
It it doesn't have a proper emotional intelligence or
intuitive intelligence. If you asked HGPT or or Claude,
are you able to to apply emotional or intuitive
intelligence, it it most probably would answer, I can
emulate this, but please be aware I'm a technology, I'm a
technological system. So it's not kind of a proper
feature which which I can deliver like, yeah.
So that that was kind of an excursion.
Your question was, are we applying these ideas also in the
stellar approach? And yes, we do.
It's, it's not the main thought of the stellar approach, but of
course, if we want to end up in a, in a more competent way of
dealing with interdependencies, it makes a lot of sense to to
not only use our, our cognitive brain.
And can you tell us a bit more about the seller approach in
particular and also what benefit it can bring to apply it overall
in like organizational development or transforming
transformational situation that an organization might be in?
Yeah, of course. I mean the, the, the approach
itself is, is just an organizational development
framework. So it's a development part which
helps organization to move from more conventional ways of, of
doing business to more regenerative ways of doing
business. So from, from just do less harm,
doing less harm towards net positive contribution.
And, and the way we do that is always iteratively step by step
by step by step by step through teams and, and also anchored
pretty much in, in daily practices and in daily
decisions. To give you just an overview, we
work with three different layers or, or dimensions, which we call
principles, practices and virtues.
So the, the four principle, the four principles, they are kind
of our guiding stars. They are kind of a northern star
where what's, what could be a regenerative direction as an
organization to go to. And then the, the seven
practices, they kind of translate those principles into
real behaviour and practices. How can we better understand
interdependence? How can we use our own circle of
influence? How does regenerative decision
making look like? How can we make progress
visible? And, and those questions.
And then the the virtues, they are more kind of inner
capacities which help that the people do not burn out in these
kind of long term transitions. And usually we work with teams
like team by team by team by team.
And we just help teams to become more aware of how they could
possibly contribute to a more regenerative outcome or impact
in the overall organizational picture.
And again, there's a paradox, of course, because that's why I
said rewriting the rules or changing the rules while playing
the game. Of course, we are all still
pretty much part of this neo capitalist or neoliberal finance
and asset capitalism. Maybe that's that's a way to
describe it. And of course we need, we
urgently need change on a systemic level, like the
economic system as such has to change.
But then you end up with a question of agency, like who is
God? Who is going to change it?
And of course, I mean at least like to, to, to simplify a
little bit, at least I would differentiate between three
players which, which should be taken into account, which is
politics and regulation, which is civil society and which is
the economy itself. And what we can, what we can
observe, you said in the at the very beginning, let's do not
slide away into politics. But now we aren't in into
politics a little bit. What we can observe these days
is that political decisions, like global political decisions
are not really pointing towards the future, but they rather show
any like different kind of rollbacks pointing into the
past. So we can't expect politics to
save us and to to kind of really deal with those urgently needed
systemic shifts. But the main thing is if
politics doesn't act wisely, the problems are still there.
They do not disappear. We are still overheating and
burning the planet. We are still contributing to
hilarious social inequality and and all these kind of kind of
things. So if politics is is not the,
the area to look at, the agency pretty naturally goes to the
civil society and to the economy itself.
Why? Because if you don't act upon
these these challenges, there won't be a successful way to do
business in the in the future, because you just can't do
business on a, on a depleted planet with exhausted societies.
So. Yeah.
And don't get me wrong, I would want to dive right into politics
and discuss of how we can also move things in that regard.
But that would be a different kind of episode and conversation
that we would be having. And it's probably going to
derail because there is so much to talk about.
And so coming back to the economical aspect, so currently
like technology is one of the main drivers for economic
growth. And you've now also highlighted
earlier when you differentiated between the six like layers and
then again artificial intelligence and mapped it
against it. What do you think does economy
do right and what does it do wrong currently when integrating
AI into organizations or also including it in a responsible
way? And how does it also move things
forward so that we can anticipate it to be state?
Yeah. I mean, I think we have to
acknowledge that we use AI and technology pretty much not free
of context. So the way we use every
technology always has to be seen in the context of, in this case,
the economic system we live in. And of course, also the way we
apply technology these days has the purpose of contributing to
the rules of today's. Yeah, I would say this is
definitely, definitely something to to keep in mind.
Because if I compare it for example, to climate change
discussions, which we had like decades ago or which we didn't
have, there are some comparable dynamics when it when it comes
to AI at this point. Because if we took our time
right now and if we really thoroughly thought about where
could technology in general and AI in particular help us to
really progress as a society and to to come up with a system
which really fosters something like thriving coexistence.
So that that's maybe that could be an interesting guiding
question. So how, how to build an economy
and economic system that fosters thriving coexistence,
coexistence of humans and coexistence of humans and and
non human being living beings. So if if it took this, if it
took our time right now to answer these questions?
Of course, then we might end up with very different ideas
compared to how technology is used today.
We don't do that because again, we are caught in market
dynamics. So there's a huge market
potential, there's a huge business potential.
So we have to move, we have to be fast.
The economic system and the way it is created today doesn't
allow for for reflection. And also, of course, another
question is where would those kind of spaces be where we can
have this kind of? Who has the agency to call them
together? Exactly.
So who does that? But yeah, I think compared to
climate change, again, we are just caught in this kind of
acceleration trap, which is pretty much fueled by how the
economy is run. Somebody would have to stop that
in order to take a little bit more time.
And this is what we just do not do.
So we'll all find out as a society and as as human beings,
as a human race, where we end up.
And if we like now keep that in mind and look back into the way
of how we structure organizations and potentially
also intersect with new paradigms that we find ourselves
in, in work or also at the intersection to technology,
there is often tension as well. And there's tension between like
the technological systems and the human agency or so any other
responsibility that we would want to use in order for us to
design collaboration. And I mean, in the end,
collaboration also means trust. How do you see the interplay and
how do you also approach it when you collaborate with your
clients also ecosystem partners in designing it for a
regenerative organization? Yeah, I think we, we really, and
and this is again a reference to systems theory.
We, we really have to differentiate here between
living systems and non living systems.
And I think this is really like from a theoretical point of
view, this is very, very important that talking about
trust and this this is the the main theme of your your podcast,
a series. Trust is a property of living
systems. Technology is first and foremost
a non living system which does not run on trust, which emulates
trust maybe but but which does not run on trust, but it runs on
probability, runs on probability and on things which can be
measured. And that's that can be a problem
if you contrast it to life, because life actually emerges in
the the spaces in between which are not measurable.
If we try to measure everything in life, like I said before, it
wouldn't be life, it would be rigid and it would be dead at
some point or dead at some point.
I think it's a little bit like if you know, for example, the
the the ideas and the books and the theories by by Nora Bates
and she differentiates between warm data and cold data.
And I like this expression when warm data is, is all, all the
data, which is like data quote, UN quote, which which is
produced by by living beings. Whereas cold data is, is our
pretty close to to what we usually refer to when we talk
about about data. And I think this is something
which you have to keep in mind also when it comes to designing
organizations. And also especially when it
comes to to the question of agency, because I think talking
about agency, this is maybe the main difference between the
older digital technology and the, the newer like AI related
technology. And technology has always been a
catalyst for change. So until here, nothing is new
with AIAI technology and technology drives change.
What is somewhat new is the fact that AI is able to decide so to
to take its own decisions if you let it, and that it's even more
and more able to execute its own decisions when, when it's when
it comes to, to agentic AI. And if you want to design for
collaboration. And then coming back to your
question, if you if you want to design for collaboration between
humans and technology, you should be very precise in
differentiating decision making. Humans only humans aided by AIAI
only question mark. And also the same of course
applies to execution like coming, coming back to agency,
like who runs the decisions, like who executes the decisions?
And the more you leave decisions or even execution to AI, the
more of course, you also would have to integrate technology
into the governance of an organization, for example, the
org chart. So AI as a colleague, for
example. So if, if you really say like
this is a domain where humans are not involved anymore, then
the, the consequence should be in, in order to be transparent
and to, to really take conscious decisions when it comes to orc
design, for example, to really display where are the domains
where we have the feeling that AI could or should take over.
But again, we should beware if, if we do so, we should very
beware, very much beware that the decisions and the execution
run, the technology will never be based on warm data, will
never be based on trust. But like I said before, just on
the emulation of trust, which is based on measured, measured
probability. And that's something very
different. And, and we, we tend to not
differentiate it because it feels so human and it feels, so
it's, it's so perfectly emulated that, that we, that we kind of
forget that these are two different operating modes.
What's the consequence of forgetting about that?
And do you think that there's ever going to be a choice for
either or or will they coexist going forward?
I think they, they certainly will will coexist.
I mean, I don't see any path. I mean the only option I see
that we kind of rewind is that we are just come to a point
where we where we don't have the energy anymore to to fuel those
systems. I mean, we all know that they
need a lot of energy and we all know about the energy dilemma we
have to face on this planet. And of course it could happen
and it's just kind of a very dark scenario, but it could
happen that that we have to face any kind of energy problems in
the future. And, and then of course, all
those technological systems would be under pressure.
Speaking of energy and you also being quite deep in the
intersection of building up regenerative organizations, do
you have a point of view of how or what a regenerative
technology stack could look like and also potentially one that
emulates trust in a way that we can definitely also follow
rather than be uncertain about it?
Yeah. I mean following the the main
thought in regenerative economics, I would say
returnative technology would be technology which is in service
to life like the greater process of life and and this effects
again different layers. First layer would be like how is
the technology itself designed? Which which problems does it
solve and how inclusive how, how privileged sensitive is it and
so on. The second layer is rather
rather about the business model. So how is the business model
designed? What happens with the data, what
system, which kind of system is fed by the technology?
And thirdly, of course, coming back to the energy question,
what kind of context condition does the technology need in
order to be to to be run or to be to be deployed?
So what about the energy consumption?
What about the water supplies for cooling and so on?
So I would say regenerative technology would be rooted in
regenerative principles. It would be very aware of right
relationship. That's how John Fullerton always
puts it. Like what's a helpful relation
between humans, amongst humans and, and between humans and non
human human beings? And how can technology shape
this this relation? I guess regenerative technology
would rather be about reconnecting instead of hunting
for our attention and making us more lonely essentially.
And it also would apply and this is also one of the regenerative
principles, it would apply long term thinking.
So. So how can technology be a
bridge for future generations for example?
And if you rethink technology in this way, you might come up
interestingly enough with not that much the high tech
applications, but rather the low tech applications like low power
environmental sensors, minimalist and low spec software
like these, these kind of things which are maybe not the main
focus of where technology is heading these days.
And it's interesting that you look at it from an
infrastructure, but then again, also from the collaboration or
human interaction kind of way, because like AI is also rapidly
entering the way of how teams collaborate or also how it
becomes not only a tool, but a sparring partner.
And that people trust in the way of how they share their
thoughts, their ideas, also their interactions.
So do you, I think that AI will amplify or expose an
organizational existing trust culture and also how can we as
leaders be consciously aware of any of those interactions and
shape it in a way that it serves us going forward?
Yeah, I think, I mean it will be pretty much acts or is already
acting like a mirror. So if an organization runs on
low trust, AIA will most probably get deployed as
surveillance or or speed pressure or political weaponry
like prove your productivity. And on the other hand, if trust
is is high, it becomes more something like an augmentation,
like people maybe can use AI to learn faster, to prototype their
ideas to, to collaborate better. I think like the question, how
can, how, how can this be driven in in one or another direction?
Of course it it has yeah, it's, it's pretty much related to the
to question of transparency like and, and having a transparent
intention. So what do we use AI for and
what do we explicitly not use it for?
To be to be very clear and transparent about that again, to
use a safe enough to try approach like how can we start
with small pilots? How can we at the same time
apply clear safeguards? How can we keep decisions
revisable because they are not set in brick and mortar for for
years? And how can we also involve
multiple perspectives? I would say like this idea that
we all constructing reality and every person sees a different
slice of reality and of course this drives a different
technology if you really integrate these thoughts into
technology development. And you just ended with
technological development. And I mean, that's one of the
main questions of how it's also going to be evolving.
But if you now got the chance to look ahead and also from what
you reflect upon at the intersection of organization and
technology, what would be 1 structural shift that you
believe will be essential and critical for organization to
remain trustworthy? And initially, I thought I could
ask you about five years. I'm not sure how far like future
forward, we want to dive into the answer in that question.
So I would leave the time span up to you to choose.
But what would be this one shift that you proposed to take?
Yeah. I would say maybe 2 shifts come
come to mind. One is again about the the basic
idea of complexity and living systems.
And I think 1 is to to shift the governance from optimizing for
certainty to optimizing for uncertainty.
So I think every, every organization is well advised to
optimize itself for uncertain environments, meaning to
acknowledge that life is and always will be messy and finding
ways to, to navigate through this, this mess instead of the
illusion of of solving problems once and forever.
And and the second thought would rather be around shift yeah,
your governance and maybe also your culture from looking at
siloed components to interdependence by design.
So I think this is what we are what we as humanity are are
forced to learn in one way or the other that we are dependent
from other entities other like I said before, other human beings,
but also non non human beings. So decisions must explicitly
include the effects on all relevant stakeholders just as a
prerequisite for our own existence and for our own
survival. So we can't separate the the
organization survival from the health of its environments.
And this is maybe something which more and more it's not
mainstream thoughts, I would say, but more and more it comes
to our attention. And if, if I look ahead for the
next like talking about time spans, maybe the next 5 or 10 to
10 years, I think either we will have managed to kind of navigate
more wisely or the pressure is very, very high, urgency has
risen quite a bit. But in any case, we will have to
deal with with this issue. We're about to enter the end of
our conversation and before we end, I want to dive into some in
between moments, and I want to start with the first one, which
is what trust feels like to you. I would say trust feels tender,
gentle, warm somehow. Yeah.
I think it's the feeling of, of being reassured that we can stay
in relationship and in relation even if we have conflicts to
solve and even if we have maybe different ingredients we, we, we
bring in, but still that there's relational basis which is not at
all questioned. And if you now take that feeling
and translate it into organization, what does trust in
organization feels like to you? To move forward with without
pretending to have all the answers.
And according to you, what is one of the most overlooked
assets in transformation? Rhythm and understanding of
rhythm, understanding that that living systems are rhythmical
beings, so sometimes they can go fast and sometimes they need to
slow down and to rest. And every transformation process
needs this understanding of rhythm.
You can't just push for speed if the system is is not ready.
And if you now look into the way that technology is included into
organization, what does technology for organizations
mean? Well, I think that means a lot
of things. It can be great help.
Technology can be great help, but technology also can be pain
in the ass, as we all know. It's it's, it's, it's often, I
would say it's, it's mostly an amplifier of all the gifts, but
also of all the shadows which are alive in an organization
anyway. And based on that, what does
tech need more of? Purpose Inquiry.
So what's the purpose of this technology of this particular
technology? Interdependence, literacy.
Again, transparency and honestly speaking, regulation because we
live in really in, in, in the wild, Wild West these days
concerning not, not even, you don't even have to look at AI,
but but for example, if you look at social media, I think in a
decade we will look back at what we do right now and we, we will
be very surprised by how, how we thought that something like this
could, could lead to kind of a prospering and successful
society. And if we now conclude with one
thought and that is at the intersection of tech and trust,
what is it at this the intersection for you?
I think it it comes with the idea of less black box and more
transparency. So to really understand what
tech, how tech is coming to its conclusions and how tech is
coming to its ideas and decisions and so on.
And, and the second thought would be around the question,
does it increase agency like a human agency or does it replace
it with control? So I'm ending with a question
here. I thought about if we now want
to jump into that question and unpack it, but I would leave it
open and for the listeners to take it with them.
And thank you so much Simon for sharing all these jump off
points into probably a lot of further food for thought and
continuous conversation. Thank you very much for the
conversation.