Hans van Bommel (Part 2)

If you had a magic wand and you could radically modify the way corporate IT engages itself in organizations, what would you change?

That's the question I asked Hans van Bommel, an opinionated, lateral thinker about organizations and digital technology changes.

Hans is an author, crafting thought-provoking narratives that capture the essence of human experiences and sharing insightful perspectives on a wide range of topics.  He is a speaker, an opinion maker, and a conceptualist, exploring abstract notions and translating them into tangible insights and products.   Through Cycle to Accelerate,  Hans provides digital transformation coaching and strategy as well as continuous performance identification and growth.  He is also one of the key contributors behind the Flow Manifesto.

In this 2nd part of two podcasts, Hans provides valuable insights such as:

• The structure required to 'Flow'.
• You cannot get a competitive advantage with technology.
• People leaving an enterprise.
• Bicycles, Elon Musk, and marathons.
• Transforming you business doesn't mean a new technology base to be built.
• What is risk, and why it isn't if we can name it.

Transcript

R.M.: 0:33

Hello, this is R.M. Bastien, and welcome to another episode of expert advice on radical change in corporate IT. This is our second episode of our interview with Hans Van Bommel. Welcome. Let m e try to recap on where I was in what I got from the last session, and then you can correct me if I didn't get it right. So I think what you're, advocating is that there are different models that are used for understanding the business a nd IT and so on, and then corporate IT is siloed. Everybody is having their own little specific model. And what y ou're advocating is twofold. First, there should be only one model that everybody's working around and with. And then that model, instead of just being a model, it should also be fed with real information from what's going on in the business so that then the two together can make a real difference because it would be single vocabulary, single language with real information about what is going on. Am I off the track?

Hans: 1:45

You are, no , you're completely right. If you build a structure like that, you just build up organizational building blocks or some. There is one technology platform in the world, which calls it a composite, and they build all little compost sites together, and they also do it on the same architecture principles as that I am doing that and it's slowly growing and I think we lost some knowledge in the last 20 years because if you go back to the foundations where we really started 30, 40 years ago, we actually already did it. So it's not only the information. You also need to suck in, in your model, and let's say if it's one model, one meta-model, they also need to pull in your rules. You could also say, oh , there are machine and human tasks to be done, and you can also data mine them. And what you also need to do is, in your mind at least, and in the model, make sure that your rules, your tasks, your activities, your information, they are all separated. So you should also talk about integration from a non-technical perspective. So everything is loosely coupled always, and how you construct or bind it together in a production situation or in technology where you actually have the same elements, again, doesn't matter. I would prefer completely loosely, loosely coupled infrastructure. So I have like Lego stones and , and I can , and these , this kind of philosophy is also around already for a longer time, but what we don't see is we are not making this step and, and we are not really using them, and we are not using them in the way that: how can we, based on this, move forward as an endless digital transformation and then constantly move out our old stuff, our old support for our business products being delivered to society. And old stuff built. These are assets. So building block, the building block is supporting a capability, but a building block can also be a tank and a tank. Can you express a tank , uh, by a soldier express in the same , uh, dimensions? Yes, you can, because a tank has an interface, a human interface. So you need to deliver a human task to do something with this tank . And one thing is for sure, rules or policies are applied in the operation. It's, it's going on and the activities very clear also and the information, yes, we need a lot of intelligence and information coming in this machine. So what we see is that actually everything we can express in the same manner and in a tank , these elements are all loosely coupled. So it's so funny that when I start thinking about, yeah, it's always, and I call it TARI-2 in my book (task activity, rule information integration, TARI-2) can I apply it on everything! And so far I could, I'm not saying it's true, but so far I could. I can... Every time if it's if I'm doing manufacturing or what , whatever, I can work with those. The problem is that, you need to go through these loops and, and I mainly came out while I'm a physicist, my background is mainly information technology, but still, when I am going a bit further in manufacturing or so producing a tank or when being an operations, if I look at a tank and I con construct it , for example, then I also see the same elements. So that's pretty funny actually. But we need it. Because otherwise if we don't do it, so if we don't start working on one model, we can't make any predictions also. So all this predictive, predictive analysis and, and data science, you know, what we are doing is we are getting so much information in data lakes and data platforms, but I always think that it's only useful to do so when it's action driven . So based on all the building blocks you have to support your capabilities of your organization and these capabilities supporting the products you deliver. These products are attached to your goals and strategy. So if you have science and facts out of the context of your enterprise, and then you can start gathering data out of the context , out of your context or research data, then you can actually re really close the loop with in reality. But you, but , but what we are doing now is actually completely senseless because we are completely unpredictable. If we do not manage low dependencies or we are not capable of keeping everything close to the moment in time, we are now, reality, then as soon as we look forward as an organization, everything becomes a complex system. An organization is per definition complex and is per definition something which is temporal. Unfortunately, I think that 90% of the people working in enterprise are not aware what they are part of actually, still not. And I hope with my Flow Manifesto and with the Flow principles on how you can structure it to change it. But it means a lot, it means that everybody'sitting in these silos in their own mantra and their own taylorism and their own talk get out of it and really start getting into a conversation that we understand each other. So the human factor is still number one, actually, it's always the human factor <laugh> .

R.M.: 7:09

It is, it is. Even organizations are, are construct of the mind anyway in the first place. Okay, so I guess I was wrong. I was, I was under the impression that. Flow was about, you know, movement and adapting and adapting yourself and so on. And, and no, and maybe that's true, but what you're saying is more than that is that this flow must be based on something that's centralized and unified, which is the understanding of what the organization is, single models, single vocabulary, feeding building blocks and so on, which is, and that's structured. And you know, we're not going with the wind, okay ? We're really, uh, having a solid base under it. Is is that, is that what you're saying?

Hans: 8:02

Actually both is true. So I will explain this followed. One of the pity things at the moment in , in society is that we have this world. So what did capitalism do? If we have an insurance enterprises around. What we have in the Netherlands, for example, we have a lot , let's say 40 of those enterprises. At the top of those enterprises, there are four major shareholders. All these enterprises are sort of derived from each other and they do a sort of virtual competition. And we in society think that we are really actually talking to different enterprises, but enterprises cannot compete with each other because they all, for 90% in sense of productivity, innovate in the same direction. Uh , and they all wanna have their customer interaction. So , um, by science, we know that you can't get a competitive advantage based on the use of technology because we are all using the same innovations. Actually, in this case we'll talk about an enterprise, then there are actually only four because you need to go to the top level and we say, okay, it's four enterprises. And those four enterprises from a shallow perspective are what they did is to the outside world is a dragon with multiple heads , but it's a complete strategy on the top from those shareholders, of course. And what's then direction? So when you are in the board of one of those enterprises, and what they need to do is, oh , vision, we need vision. And I really believe in vision. If there's no vision, then it won't lead to nothing because you need to be capable of looking, uh, beyond a horizon. So when you look beyond t he horizon, and that's a problem w ith our governments with everything at the moment. The west have no vision, we have no vision anymore. If you have no vision, then you cannot move an enterprise in a bounded way, into a direction. And then there are enterprise architecture , hence and enterprise, they can't have a direction. That's true. It's the same with time. What is the direction of time? So it's just a story, but this story is extremely important and the story should also be bounded. So when you reverse back from the story, that means somehow you can develop a strategy to get and reach the vision, to reach the horizon. And the horizon is something you can see . So you can really move to the horizon if you, but you can't meet this vision, but when you're at the horizon, you think I'm pretty close actually. You keep on moving. When you reverse it back, it's actually constantly a goal. And the next goal and the next goal to achieve horizon. And your vision is nothing more than with what kind of performance do you wanna reach your next goal while maintaining quality. Do you accept enterprise debt, technology debt? Do you accept people being burned-out when you reach this point? Or should we all be in the most relaxed state and happy while reaching it , reaching it, the next goals and milestones and executing your strategy? Then what is Flow? So Flow means that the whole organization, as a whole, needs to start moving in to forward this direction. You can't leave anybody be behind. So what you're doing is start moving and then you think, hmm , there are a lot of constraints while I move forward. So what we need is what I always say, we have five essential change capabilities, the human factor, collaboration, substantive governance. We need a a dashboard knowledge, which is which with real data on my bicycle, to know how I'm performing and when I change, how am I changing and oh whoa , uh, I'm seeing that actually I wanna move forward. But to get a better performance, one of my first things I need to do for this building block, I need to become adaptive. So I need to chuck it up in chunks. And the other one also, and the other one also. So an average enterprise to become a high performer or achieve a state of flow takes three to 10 years . There's no strategy party or enterprise consulting in the world who will ever tell a board member: It'll take minimal three, depending on your size and complexity until 10 years, until your enterprise is a high performer. They'll want to have fast result. We want consume immediately our profit, and we want show all that we... Impossible. So what we should do is we should start moving, solving all the organization building blocks, start making projections, and all together move forward. And unfortunately, the only way to do so is based on your products. I have been thinking about all the other ways, and if I mean product, it's product service, product service, product service in untangled of course. But a product attaches to your goals, to your strategy, to your vision, to your narrative. This narrative, if you bring it back that you can tell a story inside and people inside can start loving the story and understanding it, and then it starts to become emergent. And you can start , uh, generative dialogues internally within the structure of the enterprise. And then while moving forward, we will have certainty points for you. Now we know for sure that certain things we do have always the same order. And then you fix it as a process step or something like that. But in all the other cases, it's no sense to enroll SAFe, whatever process-minded methodology, not even as a part of your agility nor in your business side. So if you in in executing of your business operations and business processes, what they call, stop doing that. Because if you start thinking in activities, building blocks and rules, the complexity of these of your business will also go down massively and your IT landscape and the fact that you can build up shared capabilities over all your business domains also becomes available. So altogether, I think that , uh, we now are in a moment in time that we indeed, if you challenge yourself, and are open for learning, that we are at a point that we can say we really know how to do it. Now start learning how to do it all together. Because unfortunately, a top sporter can do it alone. But the mata human , which is an enterprise, they need each other. And it's all starts by taking responsibility yourself, leadership, always the human factor and the five capabilities next to substantive governance. You need your organizational governance. You need to consider the fact that you're actually a production system. Production system is you're putting ideas in, these affect your products. And then you need to cycle everything around to upgrade your product with technology. That's your production system of an enterprise, or a car manufacturer, or whatever. You need your technology, especially your future technology in place. Because when you want move forward and you wanna change stages of your product, but the old technology is on the boundaries of flexibility, never call them legacy, senseless... Boundary of flexibility. You need something new which gives you more possibilities, more flexibility, and you go over to your new reference architecture, step b y s tep, product b y p roduct, no big migrations. So everything based on this concept can f low, flow forward and all t echnologies around. T here are some people t hat s ay, no, H ans, we need to do big renovations first. I have not seen yet that I need it. I can always d o without. A nd, and this is something of the last couple of years, but the big problem is how to get everybody along with this way of thinking.

R.M.: 16:07

But that's interesting. So what you're saying is that transformation should not be based on platforms and technology, but rather focused on products and go product by product , which is usually not where organizations are, are are going, they're not usually not doing that, they're going platform by platform maybe because it's been technology driven .

Hans: 16:30

Yes. And that's that that technology driven, technology innovation , makes you always in , being a high depending organization and you will constantly be busy with your big migration, but you just need to accept your, the support you build it up in an evolution, needs to die out slowly. And you build up your new support constantly, in an evolution. Revolutions seldom succeed, or actually only 1% you could say. And that's why my books together with your binoculars are written based on the principle of the difference between billiards and cycling. Most organization in the world are playing billiards. We know the game, but we can't play it. The chance that way you stand in front of the table that everything enrolls as you have thought in your mind is 1% or less than 1%. The funny thing with cycling is we don't know why a bicycle stays upright yet. There's no physical law like with an airplane, which is completely solid, telling us why. And as soon as you get on this bicycle and you push the bicycle forward without a human on it, it just falls down always. So the funny thing is that , um, we are still doing research with gyroscopes or a bicycle without a gyroscopic momentum and stuff. We still don't know why we can do it. But the funny thing is, when a human gets on this bicycle and you don't put side wheels, it starts moving and it moves. And what we are doing is unconsciously like the swarm in the air with these birds, because it is in our DNA, it's the anti-fragile system of Nassim Taleb. We start correcting small mistakes. And that's funny , uh, actually that, that in a certain moment we can become high performers. Then when I go to Montreal or to Vancouver and I'm on my grandma bike, and then suddenly I see these mountains and I think, Hmm , my current technology support is not enough. So I change to a mountain bike and then suddenly I can get over it and when I'm out of it, I need to change back. But the fact is that with this mountain bike as a grandma, if I did it, I can still mountain bike in a city the other way around is not possible. That's the funny thing. So if everything is made for scale and for adaptivity, we can always move forward. But we first need to get to the stage. And that's why if you go to the Flow Manifesto principles, it's indeed while moving forward, you are building up this adaptivity. But the goal of becoming that is always there. And, and the funny thing is also when you start moving, when you and I with 10 other friends start running, training, running, doing a marathon, during this marathon, when we are really relaxed and running, then at a certain moment people can't come along anymore. What kind of reason? This is what you also should allow in an enterprise. You start moving you altogether while being relaxed. Try to become a high performer in , in the holistic way of working you are in. And then at a certain moment you'll see that certain people can't catch up or not motivated or whatever, and slowly they go to the flanks of the organization and they stay behind and they start working somewhere else. And that's a great principle. Because what that means, that you will always , uh, be your size will always be at the size you need to perform and , and support your capabilities. And if you don't do it, if you don't work this way, you'll always be oversized. Always you will always have 30 20, 30% too much. People look at Twitter, look at what everybody said. Yeah , this Elon Musk guy is not , uh, very social , uh, very , and I thought, huh , have you ever been responsible for a company? Do you know that if he wouldn't do it, he could also say, let's pull the, the the connector out and stop with it because it was making , uh, a loss every day. So first thing you do is start moving again. And it comes along with the fact that moving means that if you say, okay , uh, first positive impact, then profit. But that first thing you need to do is get rid of people. And, and , and that's nothing bad about it. We make it bad ourself. But an enterprise should be a healthy system like our body, the meta-human should be as healthy as a single human.

R.M.: 21:01

Hmm . So what you're saying is that , uh, people leaving organizations is not a bad thing. It's probably the organization adapting itself to the fact that they need a certain size or certain types of people to go in the direction where they're going. And it's a normal thing that people at, at a certain point feel, well , I'm not, you know, I don't feel part of this , organization anymore. This is not... And , and they go elsewhere. And you're, you're okay with that.

Hans: 21:31

Completely. As long as the group within is completely inclusive, no discrimination, no hate, and everybody get the same chances, we are, but based on competence, based on what we can get out of our hands. I think we should also, while moving forward, have a one very strict rule. We do not meet and talk more than 30% of our time. The rest of the time should be in the movement itself. Because when you and I on a tandem bicycle and we are constant chatting and talking, and I like to go the max and I see my heart rate is very low still, like , you know, then I will say: Please shut up, let's move a little bit faster. And if we do this and we are on high performer , then by default you can't talk anymore . When you can talk, you are actually training. You are training. So we need to learn all these meetings, if you are in a system of flow and you understand flow, you don't need to find out how to move forward anymore. So you don't need all these meetings we are having now about how do we move forward altogether? How are we doing this? And one thing for sure, that's why I'm impressed by Elon Musk, he knows this principle by nature. He, in my opinion, when he wanted to go over Twitter , the only thing he did is I first do the catch, I lock them in, and then I start buying time. Of course, the first thing you can say, ghost accounts, how easy is that? You say, ghost, we have trolls on the platform. Ah , it took time. He got everything he needed to look through the organization and this guy doesn't need a long time. So one , two . So he bought time and he said, oh yeah, I can do it. Then he opened the door and he walked in. I said, okay. I pull it out, I take it, acquisition is done. He only bought time. And he now he knows how to inject flow in Twitter and he will succeed. In my opinion. Could be wrong. He's too experienced now.

R.M.: 23:29

Good. Uh , well , we'll , we'll talk again at some point and see and debrief. Exactly. Uh , could you , uh, there , there's one thing , uh, a few minutes ago you talked about your five

Hans: 23:39

Capabilities.

R.M.: 23:41

Okay, can you, can you list them?

Hans: 23:43

Yeah, you can find 'em on our Cycle to Accelerate website, but they are: Collaboration, number one, most important one is the human part. Second one is Substantive Governance and organizational governance. They are intertwined. It's one form of governance, but you can't move forward with knowledge around we people have it here, but the meta-human, which is an organ, needs it in between then your Production system. Every organization needs to understand its production system. And the fourth one is Technology. How do I, when I move forward, can , what is the next step to new technology and how is it is build up and designed for adaptivity? And the last one is infrastructure for operational excellence and site reliability. This is especially a signal to governments. If I'm 85 and I get into this and I'm getting an application in front of my face of the government and, and it's still so , uh, it breaks so easily and the performance is still so bad and I, I can't easily access. We have so many people not getting along with society anymore because of this problem. They all need somebody to support them to get in contact with an , with an enterprise because of this high level of digitization. And I'm giving a workshop, I just gave one in Germany. It's a , it's an eight hour workshop. And in this workshop I also show them that how much administration is being done by a single person in society and what it means. And that it makes our lives actually horrible if we continue like this. And we need to really redesign a lot of things in democracy and society to get it back up. And it is possible. But I'm missing leaders, leaders with an engineering background. And if they don't come up as well as in enterprises as well as in the top of governments, we have a big problem. We won't reach our desire outcomes. And I know for sure if, if half of all politicians we re r eal good engineers, well pa id e ngineers, we can solve almost every problem. <l augh>, I'm a h undred percent sure, but they don't talk. They, they don't, they are not those guys and girls an d w o men, th ey w ant sit around th e t able having these, ou r c hats until fo ur a t n i ght. You know, it's completely unnecessary. Engineers, they just have another character an d t hat's why they're not fond of having th ese k ind of people around in, in this kind of levels of society, I guess. I do n't k n ow. But we, but we need them over there.

R.M.: 26:23

So , uh, are you, are you advocating engineering or re-engineering of our societies?

Hans: 26:31

So if you go to the Flow Manifesto, then you see a first principle and this principle tells, so positive impact , sorry , is always more important than profit or cost. And I mean w ith it is, if you do not deliver impact, positive impact to society, economy or environment, and you make a lot of profit, then you know that it's a really unhealthy company. When you do so, or when you're not making a positive impact yet, but it c osts a lot of money t hat I'm often talking about governments, you're also very unhealthy. So the d onut way, bounded, bound everything until a certain normal. And that's why, when I d esigned Flow Manifesto, the first principle is positive. Bounded. Again. The only thing I actually took along with Agile is low depending work, depending o f moving forward based on low dependencies. The rest is a manifesto o n a pretty high abstract level that says positive i mpact and start moving forward. And this is what we need at the highest level. We need it now and fast. And if we do not move fast and flow forward and become high performance, we are out of time altogether. That's why we came up with it. So it's moving forward, but based on an engineering mindset, actually not on a management and risk. Because what is risk actually? Risk is also some, some really abstract thing because when you're bicycling and you see this big pit hole , what are you doing? Maybe the first time you weren't aware and you got into it and you , and you smashed on , uh, on the ground. But that will probably the only, only time. What you will learn is how to jump over it or how to break and get around it slowly. And, but you will keep on moving. So risk is nothing more than a learning system. So when enterprises say, give me a list , list of risks, then you should actually say, give me a list of things we actually already learned. Then the risks don't ex exist . They don't exist anymore. Risks are things that you don't know yet. They are unpredictable. But to list everything you know is completely ridiculous. It's the wrong way of bounding yourself while moving forward.

R.M.: 28:57

So instead of of having a list of risks , we should just rename them to...

Hans: 29:02

Yeah, you should say things we already learned in the past. And if we still make these mistakes, if it's not too often, it's not a problem. If we do it three times in the Netherlands to say, you then you are a donkey. It's not very clever. But all the other time we should not worry about it. We should keep on moving and accept that sometimes we will fail a new risk or new things to learn about will come up. And then we embrace them as a present and we say, okay, within all our activity , there are still some holes in our system. We need to take some measures but not stop moving, learn and actually become a better performer because it's less likely that this learning aspect is something you will forget about soon. This also implies why people should stick around enterprises for pretty long time. This whole job hopping idea of moving in fast and go from one to another , it doesn't work. We do, we we , we build up. Maybe in the beginning it could be productive, but at a certain moment, if you wanna become a high performer, you need to stick with a team. You need and it's not one year, it's five to 10 years. You need to stay with an organization for a while because we humans can only based on, on trust and, and embracement . And if somebody comes in and within one second gives you a compliment about a competence or whatever within, while they don't know, you don't take them serious. But after 10 years working together and they say, I know this guy can buy bicycle , man , he's a high performer for sure. If he tells it, then probably it's , it's true.

R.M.: 30:37

It's very interesting. So , uh, let me get back to the risk thing. So what you're saying is that if I can sit down and make let's say do a risk assessment , risk identification workshop. So if we can sit down and draw a list of risks, it means the simple fact that we can write it down, it means that we know it does exist, hence we've learned it before or we have some knowledge of it. And if we have knowledge of it, it means that we can, we can manage it, so that it doesn't happen.

Hans: 31:13

In my book, in my second book, we have two , we also mention the Via Negativa and the Via Positiva. People learn from the via negativa, everything which is in relation to a trauma , an accident, a fight, emotional disaster or whatever. It sticks. But most of life is positive, it doesn't stick. Our brain is designed to learn. So if we keep on learning, we will most likely also stay healthy longer and become older , long , longer. And we already know that. So risk is healthy, risk is what we need. But we should not call it, we should. Learning aspects of life. I learned about that and it was great! And the moment it went wrong, we should actually enjoy the moment it goes wrong because we know we are learning something. We don't need sweat. We don't need to live in bad anxiety, all what's going on. But as long as we solved all together and it's not one person, we point out that there's no problem also because many shoulders make it light work.

R.M.: 32:16

So, back to the original question. The question was: if you had a magic wand and you could change the way corporate, it engages itself in the organization. So you went on and there's lots of things. This is very dense, very dense, very dense. The second part of the question, I don't know if you recall when I sent it to you months ago. Okay, now knowing that magic wands do not exist, okay, it was just a , a game for, for our podcast. What would you suggest to organizations that they do, that they do first, what should they work on first so that they get there? What is what practical thing they should, they should start with?

Hans: 33:00

Most important thing is what I call performance identification. So if you want to understand Flow and becoming a high performer, then the only thing you can do is, and I always use these five capabilities. So if you have the five capabilities and per capability, you start thinking about what of the aspects we are using in our enterprise are actually high dependencies and what are low. So per capability, you start looking at do we have a centralized collaboration model? I'm a fan of a centralized knowledge model, but decentralized way of working. But we are looking at the same performance metrics. That's, that's how I like. So you need a baseline performance and I have some white papers and articles about it , but it's baseline performance, it's not a baseline which you can , um, look at and say another enterprise doing it better or not. No, it's a baseline because it's your baseline. When you start measuring something, it's only being aware per capability. How did we organize ourselves within those five capabilities and how dependent are they at the moment? On our website, you can see we , I call the personal assessment. So then you go, there's a little little, you will get through those five capabilities and it asks you questions about your opinion about the enterprise you work in. And then you will get a mark, a result. And then there , if you would look on the water , you would actually see a sort of baseline existing there. Are you a builder playing organization or are you a cycling organization? That's actually what you're measuring. And if you are high performing cycling organization after you measured it, you can be very happy. But most likely you are at the majority of still playing billiards, high dependencies. So I call it performance identification. Create your baseline, then start with the transformation strategy. And that's not a digital transformation. It's over the whole width of your, of your enterprise within those five capabilities. It's constantly changed and erased all the negative constraints and turn them around and make them positive. And sometimes you can what , what, there are some people in the market who talk about enabling constraints. You , you also need to enable your organization with constraints to achieve flow. And this is actually, these are the patterns which work for you while moving forward. But you can never get it done in a way that you will be a hundred percent predictable because it doesn't exist . It's always complex, always unpredictable. The only thing you can do is increase the chance of getting the right outcomes. And that takes three to 10 years in my opinion.

R.M.: 35:47

People don't like , uh, to hear that, to hear that it will take five to 10 years for anything. But the reality is that it's what it does anyway . So you look back. When you look back at how much time it took to do something, takes a lot of time. You know, I'm finishing my renovation on my house and I started thinking about it about seven years ago. From the ideation down to completion, seven years... Things do take time.

Hans: 36:15

I know we're still when young people come in the market, we desire of them to start studying Prince2 foundation, learning about something that starts and has an end: a project. I believe in projects, but only when you build facilities. I need to build a house so we , or or building so we can build work in it. But all the abstract matter, the substance flowing through enterprise in relation to the products you... It's never, ever a project. Stop thinking in projects. Because also when you derive projects, you don't see the dependencies anymore. Everybody becomes blind. Organization working based on projects are per definition playing billiards. And by law, the three particle principle of rule of of physical law is that if you play bill billiards, you are completely unpredictable. Even if you train very hard on , on billiards, only a few can do it. But if you start cycling, almost all people can do it. Learn to start cycling, become a high performer, and at the end achieve the ultimate state of flow, which is always a temporal state. And you need to keep on fighting to get back in flow. Like we humans also, we are not always in flow, but we can achieve it. And we know the only reason why Usain Bolt can run faster than the the rest is that he's capable of being in flow, completely relaxed while performing at his high , highest highest . And the funny thing is that there are definitely a lot more people in the world who can achieve it, but they don't have the mindset, the last mile, the last thin slice. They , we need to become world champions. But it's not important. Being good is better than best. So let's just be average, right ? Being eight or seven, but not a two or three. And enterprises are down there, all of them. Unfortunately, there's no, I have not seen one who's doing it really well. We really need to change something. It's good for everybody. Mental health, good for society. Enterprises are not being controlled by governments. So they have their own world and they can be very disastrous as we know for people. So it's it's fundamental stuff to change all together.

R.M.: 38:36

Yeah, yeah, it was really interesting and it was really dense. I think it will trigger lots of thinking. It's been really interesting. Yeah , we could go on for hours.

Hans: 38:46

Yes, but , I think the way you're doing it is actually fantastic. Thank you for the podcast and for this interview.

R.M.: 38:55

And thanks again for the , uh, for your contribution. Thanks for listening and stay tuned or click on the next podcast for more expert advice on radical change in corporate. It.