In a humanocracy, you know, discussions about the future of the company are open, they're ongoing, and everybody's part of that. You know, whether it's through a strategy process that elicits people's ideas and inputs on an ongoing basis or some other mechanisms, but it's, you know, there's a broader, there's a broader perimeter. of like, what's acceptable, what are acceptable conversations? My name's Katrina. And I'm Steve. And we are curious about how changing conversations can change organizations. Yeah, and together with our community of transformation nerds, we're exploring how to leverage conversations to make our workplaces more fit for humans, but also more fit for the future. We'll use our podcast series to do just that. While being in conversation with business and thought leaders who have interesting perspectives on the topic. So without further ado, let's start the conversation. Today's guest is Michaele Zanini. Michaela is the co-founder of the Management Lab, and he's the co-author of the book, Humanocracy, Creating Organizations As Amazing As The People Inside Them. He works to help organizations become more resilient, creative, and engaging places to work by inventing tomorrow's management practices today. We collaborated with Michaela on his book, Humanocracy, a couple of years ago, and we're looking forward to explore the book through the lens of conversations. Welcome, Michaela. Hey, Katrina. It's so good to see you again. Likewise. Yeah. So we're pretty excited to talk to you about humanocracy and your thoughts on, you know, the attributes that make humanocracies, but looking at it through the lens of conversations. And that's what we're thinking could be the starting point here. But to give context to people listening, I think it would be great just to have a couple words on what is a humanocracy. Could you give us some insight? Yeah, yeah. And I'll try to make this short, but the premise of humanocracy, which is a book that Gary Hamill and I wrote a few years ago, and it's just kind of the driving force behind a lot of our thinking and our work, is that most organizations are not as capable as they can and could be. They're not as resilient, they're not as innovative, not as engaging places to work as they can be, as the people inside of them are in their personal lives. And, you know, with their potential. And the reason for that is that, you know, they're just not set up to unleash those kinds of capabilities. You know, they have this model, which we call a bureaucratic model that was, you know, developed in the early 20th century, really with the objective of, you know, having efficiency delivered at scale and conformance and control being driven from the top down. And that's a model that might have worked in the early 20th century when information was really hard to move, where people mostly were semi-skilled, some of them were illiterate, and where the pace of change was very slow. You know, obviously none of that is true today, but organizations are still stuck in that model. And so what we need is a different model where, you know, the guiding principle isn't maximizing conformance and efficiency. I mean, those are important, but it's rather, you need that, but you also need a system that really unleashes contribution of everyone in the organization. And for that, we need a different organizing paradigm. You know, one that is far less authoritarian, far less top down, and far less, you know, driven by formal processes and procedures. I mean, those are important. So we're not saying we have to get rid of all of that, but we probably need to ratchet those massively down and create space for people to be much more entrepreneurial, much more innovative, and much more collaborative than they are today. So, and that requires a different, yeah, a different organizational design, a different kind of paradigm, and we can get into that and what it means in the context of conversation in today's discussion. Thank you for that. I think just to give an overriding sort of takeaway also from having talked with you guys on this, is like, this is about unleashing the wisdom of the crowd on research. And we're going to be really worthwhile. And we're going to be really worthwhile problems and just finding great ways to do that in our organizations. So, Steve, I can see you're dying to ask a question. Yeah, it's actually like if you then glue conversations to the idea of a humanocracy, I think it's interesting to think about how are conversations different in a humanocracy. And you've been spending a lot of time talking to leaders of what we would call humanocracies. And I think I'd be curious to hear where you see the differences, because our perspective is that the conversations are actually the elemental level of engagement in an organization. That's where we come together. That's where we create anything together. That's in a meeting or in a conversation. And therefore, if the conversation doesn't unleash contribution from everyone, if the conversation is not engaging, then obviously the organization is neither. So I think it's interesting to look at what does it take then to take that idea of a humanocracy? What does it look like when that manifests in a conversation? Yeah. Yeah, that's a good question. And let me just maybe contrast that with the way conversations happen in a kind of more of a bureaucracy. And by the way, bureaucracy, I know that it sounds like a weird term. You know, it's maybe something you describe the post office, you know, with or the government department. But in fact, if you look at the attributes of bureaucracy, which is sort of, you know, big leaders appointing small leaders, small leaders, small leaders, small leaders, small leaders, small leaders, roles are defined in a very kind of formal, rigid way, you know, decisions are made, again, from the top down, a lot of the behavior of people and units is governed by very specific principles, procedures, policies, again, most of them kind of developed kind of by central staff functions. I mean, all those things, you know, and we're like career advancement is, is a matter of how many rungs of the ladder you climb. And compensation is, again, based on your title, not what you contribute, right, and the value you're adding. So all those things that I just mentioned apply, I think, to 99% of large-scale organizations around the world. We don't call ourselves, you know, as people operating in bureaucracy, but that's kind of where we are, right? And some are more than others. And, you know, I don't want to paint a caricature, right? But if you boil it down, though, like, you know, in a bureaucracy, how does conversation happen? Well, that is really guided by a couple of assumptions about where values reside and how value gets created. And again, this is kind of maybe a caricature, but I think it's an important contrast. In a typical kind of top-down bureaucracy, the assumption is there are some people who are wise and skilled, uniquely wise and skilled, who sit at the top of the organization. They see things others don't see. They have expertise to aggregate all these signals and plan out the system so that it's optimal. They can optimize the system, right? And they just take information from, you know, inside the company, maybe outside, and just, you know, process all of that and then lay things out for people to do. And so that's how you develop the processes, the procedures, the direction, all of that. So in that kind of a system, you know, you're almost minimizing the need for conversation. You're minimizing the need for interaction because, you know, what is the conversation you need to have if you can figure everything out from the beginning? And so maybe the only conversation worth having is between, like, the functional leads and the senior people who then, you know, think the big thoughts and, you know, compare notes with each other and so on and maybe the next level down. But fundamentally, the assumption is, you know, 90% of the company, like, they just need to keep their head down and execute. And maybe they need to have a conversation with each other and their team to deal with daily issues, daily tasks and whatever. But not certainly about strategy, not certainly about the future, not certainly about, like, changing these standards, rules, procedures. That's someone else's job. You know, that's why people at the top get paid the big bucks, because that's what they need to figure out. So the quality of conversation happening with kind of bureaucracy is, for most people, it's very kind of tactical. And focus on very narrow topics. Like, you need to get something done. But it's not about the future of the company. It's not about, like, the big issues that are emerging. It's not about how to improve, right? Those are all things that we're just not even thinking that should be part of it, right? And so part of it is because how you've designed these processes and where you concentrate in power. But it's also because, as I said, like, it's hard to have a conversation about something that is uncomfortable, especially if it goes beyond your role. If it's because, you know, typically, the way you have that conversation in a traditional organization is with your boss. And so and since like your boss is basically the person who decides your future, you know, you're very unlikely to say things that might be upsetting to him or her. Because you're kind of taking a career risk. So even some conversations that you could have are not happening because of how you've structured how people advance and get recognized in a company. So that's, I think, you know, the way like most organizations are set up to run, and the kind of conversations that they naturally produce, which, back to your point, Katrina, end up not maximizing collective intelligence, you mean, you're basically you know, you are, you know, you're probably capitalizing on 20, 30% of the insights and, and, and, and, and the information and the exchanges that you could have. So that's, that's sort of like, I think most companies, and we shouldn't be surprised that that's what happens in organizations, because that's kind of what they're built for, okay, even though we may not want to, may not be aware of it, but that's kind of, in essence, what you have in a more of a humanocracy. And again, humanocracy, you know, I don't want to make it sound like it's a very big, you know, highly, you know, highly complete and specified model. It's more of a set of principles that you see exhibited in companies that run in a kind of post bureaucratic way. And we can come up with some examples of that and some illustrations. But in a humanocracy, you know, discussions about the future of the company are open, they're ongoing. And everybody's part of that, you know, whether it's through a strategy process that elicits people's ideas and inputs on an ongoing basis or some other mechanisms, but it's, you know, there's, there's a broader, there's a broader perimeter of like, what's acceptable, what are acceptable conversations, right? For everyone to have, right? Everybody is expected to think strategically and contribute to the strategic evolution of the company, which means having ideas, issuing, you know, exhibiting concerns, whatever it is. So, so, so, you know, the future and direction of the company is up for debate. And everybody's part of that conversation. Conversations about improvement and rules and procedures that need to be followed to improve performance. Again, that's a conversation that is much more broadly had and really is driven by those in the front line, right, who have the context, who have the experience with the client to know what works and what doesn't, right? So they're the ones who are driving standards and rules and procedures and improvement opportunities, not some people, you know, like throw four or five levels removed who, you know, base their decisions. So it's what the kinds of conversations that happen in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, are much broader in scope, but they're much more ongoing, they're much more participative. And the other thing that I would say, and then I'll stop because I don't want to make this like a, you know, a monologue. But they are voices backed by power in the sense that people that are having conversations are, have the responsibility to make sure that those conversations lead to someone, to something concrete. Because, you know, you want the conversation to be two-way, right? And for a conversation to be two ways, you need to have the ability to do something about it. Yeah. And, you know, one of the things that drives me a little crazy about this stuff about employee listening, which you hear so much about these days, is that, which, you know, are trying, you know, I think people are trying to have more voice coming from the employees and, you know, they want to have a conversation with employees about what needs to be fixed. But the whole idea of employee listening, the way it's framed is very one way. Like, we're listening to you, right? And we might do something about it. But to me, like, listening is part of what, you know, part of an important part of a conversation. But certainly, you know, there's more to a conversation than just being, just listening to someone else, right? When I think about the organizations that are good examples of humanocracies, it felt as if, a couple of things stood out. One was, you know, a couple of things stood out. One was, you're trying to make everyone or every team or department accountable, not to their boss, but to the wider organization and the customer. So there's something about, you know, not having your boss not, but having the peers and the other teams accepted. So it's actually a much more profound responsibility than talking your boss into it. That's one thing. And also, it's actually a much more and a lot of things. And also, it felt as if, and maybe you can qualify this, when I meet these guys, last time I was with you in San Francisco, it felt as if those guys went into conversations with a pretty high consciousness as to how they were in that conversation as human. There was a special texture to it that was different from, if I may, the average boss that would go into the room and just default, take the role as the leader of the conversation because that person happens to be the boss. And whereas they kind of entered differently into the conversation. Could you elaborate on that? Or was that just in my head? Could I actually just intervene? Because I want to make sure that we are making some practical examples. So just to add to this before you answer, some of the concrete examples of the conversations that I at least noticed and that you are alluding to here might be like how hire are treating themselves like micro enterprises and making contracts across these micro enterprises or Morningstar with their colleague letter of understanding, which is basically me saying to you, Steve, at the beginning of the year, this is what I promised to do. And that is the contract that I have. Maybe you have some other interesting examples to add, Michaela, but I just wanted to add those so that people have some images in their mind. So that's totally fair point, Katrina. Let's get down to the practical details. And I'll try to answer these questions in light of those. And, you know, Steve, you were making some very good points that, you know, conversations in kind of these post-bureaucratic companies are far more lateral than they are vertical. And they are not conversations for the sake of just having chit chats with your colleagues and inventing and so on. But that's how you solve problems. That's how you make progress through conversations where you are because, you know, the organization is more horizontal. That's kind of the only way you do that. And let me just give you an example. And we can come back, Katrina, if you want to hire and Morningstar and so on. But one of the ones that popped in my head as you guys were talking is Nucor. They are a steel maker. They have about 30,000 employees. The company was founded, back to what I was saying earlier, on the premise that the genius of the organization is distributed in the periphery. So the whole organization is set up to make teams, you know, production teams responsible and autonomous for driving productivity and meeting targets. So they're very, very decentralized and disaggregated. You know, mills have their own P&L. They have about 80 or 90 of these around the world. And each inside of each mill, they have a lot of teams working on different parts of the production process. And each of these teams is independent. So how do you get the value, the coordination that you need? Right. Because these are integrated processes and these mills are kind of making similar things for different customers. And so they have their problems or they want to maybe coordinate the purchases of things or, you know, go to go to clients together. Right. And so the way they do that is one example. They have many different ways of doing it. But one example is what they call best market. Okay. So let's say that you are trying to solve a problem like, hey, I want to make steel plates and I've never made steel plates. You look around the network of mills at Nucor and say, oh, this team does steel plates. And, you know, by the way, there's total transparency in performance, which is another key. So you understand like who's doing particular things really well. So you know who they are. And you go to them and say, can you come to us, explain how you do this? Or can we come and spend time with you to understand what you do? So they have these visits. Some last a couple of days. Some can go on for two or three weeks, especially if it's something complicated. Or, you know, if you're building a new furnace and someone has built something similar in another mill, they'll come and explain to you how they did it. And they might be able to help you with the installation of that. And so there's this exchange, direct exchange between these teams that, that come together and transfer knowledge and problem solving expertise in a very kind of organic way. And they have thousands of these best marketing visits that happen all the time. And there's a sense of reciprocity. So even every one of these mills is independent. There's a sense that, hey, like I'm, I'm willing to go help this other mill and maybe take some of my people outside of the production line to go do that. That might take a, you know, it's a, it's a bit of a pain, but I can, you know, I'm willing to go help this other mill and maybe take some of my people outside of the production line to do that. And I might take a, you know, it's a, it's a bit of a pain, but I can, you know, I'm willing to work through that because you know what, like six months from now, I might have a problem and I need someone else to help. But how do they, how do they do that, Michele? Because in most other organizations I can think of when they try to have these centers of excellence, it feels like headquarter is coming to you with best practice. And there is this, just please leave us alone. So with the way you talk about this, it's kind of, everyone is willing to lean in. Everybody is curious as to who has something to offer, who, who does something that we don't get. How do you, how do you foster that, you know, market of curiosity versus just leave me alone? I mean, leave me run this kiosk and you run yours. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's a very good question. And there are lots of ways in which they, they do that. First of all, the fact that everybody is evaluated on productivity and profitability. So each, each production team gets paid a weekly bonus based on the number of tons of steel they ship safely. And, and so they're forever looking for ways to improve their productivity. And so they're going to be the first ones who are curious to see, like, how can we do this better? Right. And who else? Who else has done this? So, so there's the motivation to do this, right? And, and, and by the way, the way that motivation often works is that, you know, at whatever level you are, part of your, part of your work and your comp is based on the next, you know, the performance of the next level up. So if you're a production team, part of your comp is based on how the mill does as a whole. So you're not just thinking about your piece. If you're, if you're the manager of the mill, you're responsible for part of your comp is, you know, how do other mills in my division? So you might have, you know, mills that make a flat steel versus other steel. So they're different. So, so there's always like what you, you, you're compensated at one level above yours in addition to your own performance. So you have this broader view. So that's why the compensation is one. Transparency is another big one in the sense that you want to know like who's doing this well. Right. And who isn't third, you know, they rotate people a lot. They rotate people within the mill and they rotate people across mills. So there's, there's this, you know, you know, cross pollination. And then the last thing that they do is that they really do very, very hard, try to create this sense of community. And, you know, basically, I can't tell you how many times I visited several of their mills, how many times totally unprompted. They talked about the fact that we're a family, you know, we have this sense of like shared trust and long-term orientation, you know, very, they don't lay people off. So there is, there's this, it's a cyclical, obviously, you know, a company explosive business cycle, but when they, when they have downturns, they don't lay people off. What they do, they shorten the work week. So everybody stays, maybe they get paid a little less, but, but, but everybody keeps their job. So you have this, you have the sense that you're part of this in, you know, in this for the long term. And so you want to build a company that is effective because you're going to be there for a long time. You're not just there for six months and then leaving. So all those things kind of help create this. And, you know, one of the, you know, it's, it's, it's amazing. The company has very few central functions. So the best practices don't come from the top down. Like I actually visited their headquarters in North Carolina. I had a hard time, you know, in the suburbs of Charlotte, I had a hard time finding it because it's like, you know, like you expect a company with 30,000 people, you know, $25 billion in revenue to have this palace, right? It's like two floors of this, like non-descript building next to the regional Coca-Cola, a botley company. And, you know, they, so they, and, and, you know, the, the interesting thing is that it would tell you, you know, we don't have, it's, it's not that we don't have a chief technology officer or a chief, whatever officer, you know, we do. It's basically everybody, right? So they're distributing that responsibility. Another example, and then we can turn to others is, is, is, is how they do safety audits. And compliance, they don't have a compliance department. They don't have a safety department. They have the best safety record in the industry. And the way they do that is they have plants and people from one plant visit other plants. And they're the ones doing the benchmarking. They're the ones tell, you know, writing up infractions or things that they could improve. And, you know, it has two amazing advantages. One, you know, people who do the similar work are probably the best place. Right. To, to tell you what you're doing wrong. As a, someone who doesn't do that every day. And who's like sitting in an office and flying around. And second, you're much more willing to take feedback from your peers who are much more credible. Yeah. Than some white collar, like, right. So, so that's, that's how they, so they, they've engineered this kind of layer of conversation and discussion that is very horizontal. That doesn't require the superstructure, right. From the top. Yeah. That's cool. And it's much richer. I've just been writing these down as well, because I kind of just want to revisit in terms of like the, the, the summary points and just giving it a shot here. Because what I hear is what they've done is firstly, in terms of the conversation that they stop, they stop having is a lot of manage management slash talking with bosses and going through an upper layer is being removed. So that's one thing. So that's one thing. Another thing is that metrics drive the conversations that we'll end up having. So that also speaks to how can we as organizations, as leaders, incentivize the conversations that will help us move in the direction we want to go in. The third thing I heard you say was something about transparency. And that is maybe opening up conversations that you maybe otherwise wouldn't dare dare dare to be opening up, for example, making performance transparent. And the last thing I'll just add to this. The fourth point is around community and creating closeness in the environment, which kind of encourages a different kind of conversations by proxy. So. Yeah, that's a great summary. Yeah, that's great. Just two quick things on that. So first, I would also say that conversations, conversations are backed by authority, by power, by responsibility. Right. So, so, so you are, you're, the people are having conversations, you know, can, can do something about it. And then, and you're trying to localize that and distribute that as much as you can. So you can have more meaningful conversations. And the one about metrics, I think it's such an important point, Katrina, because, in a way, like, metrics are often used as a way to avoid or do without the conversation. Because, like, why do you need to talk to someone, you just have the data, you know, that you manage through the data, you don't have to talk to them. And instead, you know, what, you know, it's not like these companies don't have metrics. But the metrics are weaved into a organizational structure that allows those people that are looking at the metrics to do something about them, right, and to be accountable. Accountability is funny. It could have two meanings. One, responsible. The other one is able to be counted. And in most companies, accountability means the latter. You're just counting things. No, you know, you know, in these companies, you know, accountability, you know, you have the metrics, but you have to have the responsibility to do something with that, right? And, and that's, that's, that's what makes metrics and conversations not like at odds, but actually, you know, a very, very powerful kind of mix. I think, I think there's an enabler for, for, for, for, for these things that, that is conversational, because all of these principles lies on the foundation that I, as a leader, will have to be comfortable with the fact that people are having conversations with them. I think there's conversations vertically and horizontally. the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the consciousness of the conversation will offer that because there are knowledgeable people that are dependable and responsible and so forth. So there is something about, if I look at the general organization that I would often meet, there's something about how do we detox the leader to actually dare and have the courage to let go of that sense of control. You have to go by me if you want to talk to this guy. If I, if I'm not involved in that conversation, you know, I'm going to write you an email saying what's going on. I can't think of a week where I'm not involved in some kind of conversation of a boss who thinks that another boss or somebody did something that, you know, and it just sounds with this, that we, we, we, we, we have to somehow detox ourselves as leaders. We have to, to, to, to, to get to a new consciousness level. And we also possibly have to have new capabilities and equip the organization to own these responsibilities. What you're thinking on that, because it, it doesn't just happen. I need to let go of the control. The organization needs to really own it with the right consciousness. Yeah, it's easier said than done for sure. But, you know, I think it's an experience. I, I would say most leaders, and we talk about, um, employee engagement, how terrible the numbers still are. And, but if you look at the engagement of managers, it's not that much better right there. Um, and so I think, uh, there is a way to frame this as a win-win where you actually are, having quite different conversations and more pleasant conversations and more fulfilling conversations. If you just take a different style. Like I, I just, you know, uh, remember, like I was, uh, one of the companies we mentioned in our book is, is Mishlan, you know, the tire maker. And I was visiting their, one of their plants in South Carolina and talking to some of the teams on the line. And the supervisor, uh, who has gone, went through this change. They had this amazing process where they tried to experiment with giving teams more, latitude for making, for making, fixing problems and production snacks, maintaining, um, you know, the machines and whatever, you know, so taking, taking away from that conversation, you know, functional people as well as supervisor. And one of the supervisors told me, cause these, these teams operate on three, eight hour shifts. So they work 24 hours a day, right? So, and there's, there's one manager, one supervisor for the three shifts. So it used to be that the manager would get calls at three, eight hour shifts. And I'm saying like, what do we do? Like, we, there's a breakdown or there's a snag. Like, what do we do? And he's just like, I'm not having that conversation anymore because like the team is dealing with it on their own right there where they have the context. And so like, I'm much like, not only is it better for me because I'm not woken up at three AM, but like, I can talk, I can focus on like, you know, how do I develop this team? Do I have the right skill mix? Uh, uh, am I, you know, um, uh, am I setting the right objectives? Like, and, and, and having, you're having a completely different dialogue. Uh, that is like better. So anyone, one other team, admission, I'm told basically everybody leveled up. Everybody's just having better, different conversations. And, and basically before it used to be the, you know, the supervisor had, was only focused on his or her team and not really focused on like the future of the plant or the company, but now they were having that conversation as well. And, and so like, you know, yeah, of course, like some of these companies have, you know, that we mentioned human offers have fewer managers, but the managers still exist. And, but they play a completely different role. And, and, and, and, and, and, and this kind of little example, Michelin suggests, this is something that you kind of have to, you can't just think yourself into a new way of acting. You kind of have to act yourself into a new way of thinking, right? You have to experiment with team and try different things and say like, what can you do that I don't do? Or you shadow me and, you know, uh, for like a couple of days, maybe one of the teammates shadows me. And then they tell me, you know, what, what, what is it? It's broken in our conversation. What kind of conversation should we be having that we're not like, and, and so, so that you, you really need to start and do that. So, and, and you, there's no substitute to, to, to practice and experience for making that change. Right. Um, can I just test, can I just test an idea like from, um, from a transformation point of view? So say that we have an organization that wants to work, to work their way towards being more human, humanocratic or whatever, however we rephrase it. Um, we believe that, um, we believe that conversations is actually a, a great tool for that in the sense that the conversation has the potential to, to empower everyone because everyone owns certain conversations. No one in an organization does not own a conversation. So therefore the argument is if you can identify for a given organization, what are the acupuncture, point conversations that actually has the potential. So identify the handful of conversations that are either not taking place that are broken to some extent that, that if we leverage them, if we lift them to a new level, those trigger points or acupuncture points will actually generate a fundamentally different conversation. What, what, what do you think about that? You could say change metaphor. Yeah, no, I think that's really good. And just the, the organizational acupuncture piece I like and, and having the explicit discussion with what are the conversations that we're not having or conversations that are happening with, you know, only a few people where instead it should be a broader, broader set of people or a different set of people, different voices that are just not being heard. And we can come back to that. The other thing I would say is like, what conversations are we having that we should stop? Yes. Yes. You know, you know, you know, and there I'm just, you know, the thing, the thing that pops in my mind is, there is a lot of backroom political BS, and job, job, job, job, job, job, job, job, job, job, job, job position, and, you know, credit, credit taking, you know, like, how do we stop that? Yes. These are such good examples of conversations by when you say them also, like, you know, like, you know, the conversation after the conversation. So we'd just been in a meeting, and then I need to call somebody and, and be like, oh my God, Steve said this, it was so annoying, da, da, da. Like, that is a great example of a conversation I could do without in my life. And, you know, the ones you listed there, it's almost like, there are like, what, eight pet peeve conversations that are definitely happening in everybody's lives. Yeah. And, and some of them that you're pointing to, Michela, are systemic. So a lot of the conversations, for instance, around budgeting, are just totally corporate theater. We're just playing a four-month period of conversations that is just negotiations, you know, that are leading apps. We know exactly where they end, but we play the theater, we take up people's time, we actually accept shallow, artificial conversations, and therefore we are also accepting a culture of wasting time. And, and so I think it's, I think it's actually, if I really push it here, I would say, it's toxic as a leader to accept these not meaningful conversations that actually doesn't progress us, that doesn't take us where we want to go. If we accept them, that's where we have people attending, sometimes up to 50% of the meetings that they attend. They say they, you know, they're not, they're not worth it. That's not free. Yeah. And some of them are like, unproductive meetings, and you're just like, you're just not, you don't have a really good structure. And some of it is like, the informal, right? The informal politics and all of that nonsense, which, you know, like, bureaucracy sounds good, you know, it's very formal organization, but then, you know, the chance, you know, we're not robots, we're human beings. So we're social animals. So if you kind of repress that from the formal organization, it's going to bleed into the informal and may take forms that are not very, very helpful. So, by the way, like, how do you do these meetings? And how do you make sure they're productive and meaningful conversations? I love the approach that Burt's Orger, a company that we mentioned in the book, they're a Dutch home health services company of about 16,000 nurses and home health assistants. They're the largest provider of those services in Holland. And they are just a self-managing organization with very few managers. All the conversations are horizontal and so on. But everybody, everybody's taught on how to have those conversations with peers. And there's a system that everybody's trained in. I mean, you know, I brought, I consulted this before our conversation today. And it's a work, it's a lovely book. I don't know if you can see it. Self-management, how does it work? It's these two people, Astrid Vermeer and Ben Wendtig. And they detail like a whole process for doing this. So you can teach this as a skill. Because like, there's nothing worse than sort of saying, let's open up the conversation, but not give people the tools to have good productive conversations with each other. And so it's something you can teach people, right? And so that's something that gets lost. So that would be, you know, but let me just say a couple of things, a couple of points where, you know, sensitive points for the acupuncture. I do think that strategy and the direction of the firm is one, like make that a company-wide conversation, have a dialogue. Or maybe start with your team. You don't have to go and get the CEO's approval. But within your division, within your business, you just have to talk to people, like, what are the incipient threats that we're not seeing, that are not on our radar? What are you seeing that, you know, we should do? And we should tackle priorities. What are you hearing? What are things we're not exploring that we should? And then build that into the process of developing a strategy. And again, you can teach people to kind of be thoughtful in responding to you. So it's not just opening up the floor and hoping for the best. And there are all sorts of technologies that can be developed for this. Or it can be harness that we can get into that. But to me, that's like, number one, like, you know, make everybody, you know, make everybody part of the strategy conversation. Certainly for improvement, operational improvement, maybe, you know, some of the stuff we're talking about at Newport, you know, make that, again, create these horizontal communities, give them some authority and some discretion for fixing problems on their own, as opposed to having it. And then the last one, I would say the performance review, which I don't think anybody, you could just keep reading. These articles now it's fall. And you always have these articles every year. They come like literally at this time, say, the performance review process stinks, because that's what people are going through right now. Yet, we still continue with the same approach. How do you make that the performance review process? Yeah, much less of a talked out assessment of someone's performance, but more a conversation, which doesn't mean that you're not rating people or accounting, making people accountable for performance, not just about development. But how do you make the process of performing, assessing performance, a conversation? What do you make the process of performing, assessing performance, and how do you make that the performance review process? Is it that we'll be bringing into the next conversation that we'll be having? I can share my thought first, which is when I talk to you, Michaela, I get the kind of the systemic lens on stuff, which makes me reminded that if I think a conversation sucks, probably somebody else does too. So it gives me a little kick to be like, OK, well, then I should not do that. I like kind of taking that on to myself, like I hold the responsibility to not do those conversations that I know suck for everyone. So thank you for that little reminder. Yeah. What about you, Steve? Yes, a lot of things. I have many notes here in front of me. The one thing that kind of sticks with me is the idea of to get to organizations that, you know, are as amazing as the people within them, which is the subtitle of your book. I think one very concrete things we could do from a systemic point of view is to 10x the number of horizontal conversations we're having, really, because that is actually the detoxing, that we enable more horizontal conversations and we maybe design them because there is not an organization that doesn't suffer from siloing. And why is that? Well, it's a broken conversation. So I think that's one thing I would take into my work. That is, how do I 10x our horizontal conversations? What about you, Buchanan? Well, you know, for me, it was actually very interesting to talk to you guys. I really like your framing. I never really thought about it this way. You know, what are the conversations that, you know, we need to have and what conversations are we not having? Which ones will be stopped? So it's a very interesting lens. So in my next meeting, especially with clients, you know, I'll try to really think about that and maybe position it as that because it is a very tangible kind of expression of choices we make about the underlying organization. And it may be more, you know, less, you know, less theoretical, more practical way to talk about it than, hey, let's just change the strategy process. No, like, how do we make strategy an ongoing conversation with everyone in the firm, for instance? So I really, I really like that. And I thank you for framing our discussion around that, that idea. Thank you so much for joining us, Michele. Thank you so much. Hey, always a pleasure. I hope we can do this again soon. Same. We will. See you. Take care. If you're interested to follow up on any of the references in this episode, follow the link in the episode description. Thanks for listening. Remember, you're never not in conversation. So stay curious out there. See you next time. Bye.