Daniel, it's so nice to have you here. We're very happy that you joined our event on Strategy Reimagined. Thanks for inviting me. Thank you. Let me maybe share a few words on Bossart first, because not all of our people in the audience, they know what Bossart is actually doing. Bossart Group is a global provider of product solutions and services in the industrial fastening and assembling technology. Bossart was founded almost 200 years ago in 1831, and is still run by members of the family of the founders now in the seventh generation with Daniel as its CEO. Now you're present in 31 countries, over 83 locations. What a success story. Out of this position of strength, you have crafted a new strategy, Bossart 200. What is this all about and what aims or what goals are you aiming at? Yes, first of all, I have to clarify, I'm not the founder of the company. So yes, we're into a couple of generations. Then Strategy 200 is not a 200-year strategy. That will be a bit too long-term thinking. But rather that in 2031, Bossart will turn 200 years old. That's why we set an ambition into the next 10 years when Bossart turns 200 years old. That's why it's called Strategy 200. Then we have always worked in cycles of five-year strategy plans, if you will. And back in 2020, we were up to defining the next cycle for the next five years, basically. And at that point, we looked at the traditional S-curve of company developments. And you would think that after almost 200 years in business, you should be a bit mature. So you should be rather on the top of the curve. But we realized that we have a global market share of 3%. So we said we're actually rather at the bottom of the curve, and we still have room for growth. Of course, we have market shares in Switzerland, which is a bit bigger, 35%, Denmark 20%. But then all the other countries are much less. So based on that, plus a business model with our products and services combined, which is kind of unique in its globality, we said there is room for growth. So we said focus and scale should be the ambition. And on top of that, we defined a winning aspiration, which is basically together, we bring proven productivity and sustainability to every assembly operation in the world. You mentioned together. Together is really important. Why is it so important? Yeah. So if we want to go for accelerated profitable growth and be more efficient, basically doing the same or doing, sorry, doing more with the same amount of people, that means either we do digitalize and or we can work much better together across functions, hierarchies and regions. And that's why the together came in where we said if we truly want to become more efficient next to digitalization, which is happening, we need to work much better together. So that's where the together part came into play. And what did that mean for your strategy process? Yeah, that basically meant that we wanted to involve and have a collaboratively developed strategy with as many as possible people in the organization. And in order not just to say, okay, let's collaborate and then hope that people will collaborate. We said we need to walk the talk. So there is basically two waves that happened within this, where we said, first of all, we defined a winning aspiration as we did. We said we set a target for accelerated profitable growth. And then we looked at the strategic framework, which is where to play, how to win, capabilities management systems. And we opened up to a group of 50 people in seven teams to develop the contents of that strategic framework. So we shouted out and said, we want people to join in a hackathon over the next four months to develop the strategy content. And we sent them into a bootcamp to learn about sprints, sprint master roles and so on. And then four months later, they presented the options and the contents of the strategy to the leadership conference. And that resulted in a strategy. The second wave then was that we said, we presented the strategy at a town hall to all the employees. And based on that, we shouted out again and said, we want now 100 change agents who help us to further detail and implement the seven strategic initiatives that we have developed. So then it was not 100, but 400 change agents who signed up. And we were overwhelmed and said, okay, now we need to split those in two groups. Both of them were sent into bootcamps. Both of them were sent into bootcamps to, again, new people learn about what is a sprint, what is the process, what are the roles within the sprints. And six months later, after another 30 sprints, we actually detailed the seven initiatives of the strategy and were able to go for the implementation. But most important here was actually the process. So change management, because traditionally top management would define, okay, here is the strategy. And then we need to communicate. And hopefully everybody understands it. So put it down the throat of the organization. And we said, by this process, that happened naturally, because those foreign change agents working on the strategy already talked to another three, four people, which is then suddenly 1,600 people out of 2,500 who already heard about the process, who were engaged. And that meant like you have to do much less change, active change and communication later on. So change management was much easier. Makes a lot of sense. And I think it's inspiring how you share this process of doing strategy, because it contrasts quite a lot from strategy process that we observe, right? Whereas doing strategy, as you said, is something just for top management, just for the executive board or board of directors. And you basically include the entire organization. And I think just that you asked 100 people to join in the process and 400 applied is an amazing feedback from the organization that they actually appreciate it. Can you maybe share a few more examples of feedback from the employees from the organization towards this change in approach? Yeah, I think first of all, many people were overwhelmed. So they signed up and asked, hey, why do you choose me? I'm not a strategist. And we said, we're not strategists. We don't do strategy every day. And we have a lot of people who are at the front who are experts in certain fields. And why should not these people be part of the strategy process? So, OK, they were kind of happy and motivated to say, great, that I can be part of it. So it was mostly motivating, I think, for people to be engaged. But also, it provided, I would say, a learning on how to collaborate globally. So people kind of said, hey, now I learned how to collaborate with people from different cultures. For example, we had hack teams consisting of people from Denmark, Germany and Korea. And then the Germans and the Danes would talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. The Korean would never say anything. And the Germans and the Danes would say, he's stupid. He never says anything. He doesn't know anything. And then not realizing that the Koreans need a pause in order to jump into the discussion. So there was never a pause because the Danes and the Germans just kept going. Exactly. So that was a learning for some people to say, hey, now I understood, OK, Korean culture, they want to be, you know, they need a pause, they need an invitation. And whenever there is now a new problem, like if the Koreans develop something for Samsung and maybe the Germans could use it for Siemens, they would connect, they would talk, they would understand each other much better than before. And I think that that is really something that that was a feedback that people now appreciate. They can truly collaborate globally. They understand the culture as well. How interesting. What a nice observation also. Let's maybe change a little bit to the management model. We talked earlier in the event about strategy and innovation. And that doing strategizing in a new way also implies challenging the way you do your management model. And you earlier told me that you introduced five principles that you use in day-to-day project execution. Could you share those principles and also elaborate a little bit how you lift them? Yes. So the guiding principles were developed to create some behavioral guidance within the organization to say, how does good look like when we want to do a cultural change? And that's those five guiding principles, which are we experiment, we empower, we talk real, we collaborate, and we deliver value. And around those, we created some 360 assessments also for the management team, for example, where we said we want the whole organization to do a cultural change. We want to evaluate the management team on those guiding principles, whether we live up to them. We're also piloting an app which helps us to evaluate team leaders in the meetings, whether they actually apply the guiding principles. So after the meeting, you can rank the meeting leader and say, did we collaborate? Did we empower? Etc. And does that work? It's a pilot. And some people, of course, the leaders are more a bit afraid maybe in the beginning to say, ah, but how do we do that? How can that be? And maybe the guy's in a bad mood and he will rank me badly and all that. But in the end, I think it creates transparency and people reflect on, you know, what really happens. And I think in essence, it's a good thing, but it's still a pilot. So we haven't decided how broad and we're going to implement this. One principle I would like to talk about a little bit because it's really interesting. We talk real. What does it mean? Yeah, talking real is all about addressing issues directly. Now, the Swiss are maybe not really the best at talking real and maybe a bit more like the Japanese, always talking around, very flowerish. But we said in order to be more efficient, we also need to address topics on the spot and not just talk around them. So we created something like, yeah, we talk real or we put the fish on the table so we can talk about that. And putting the fish on the table, you brought something with us today to make that a little bit more. Yeah, exactly. For every guiding principles, we created a symbol, an icon, which now is represented in every meeting room across the Bossert group. And whenever there is a topic to address, people would now take the fish and put it on the table and say, so let's talk about it. So it brings in a bit of a fun factor to the discussion and people are open to put things really on the table. So it's not forbidden anymore or it's something that people don't want to do. It's now, okay. It's combined with a bit of a fun factor. We can do that. And we actually do it. So it works. And it works. It works. Interesting way. I've never seen putting someone, a fish on a table in a meeting, but good to hear that it works. Maybe last two questions on the way and the role of the leaders. You introduced a new way of doing strategy and you involve broader parts of the organization. And that has an effect on the way a leader is perceived and its role. Can you share some reflections on this change? Yes. So leadership pretty much changed from, I would say, more command and control to more coaching and listening. Again, talk real also means listening a lot. And somebody, Susan Salzbrenner, our head of people in the organization, she brought in the term humbition. I think we need to be a bit more humble as leaders. Because again, what we don't want is that people come to work, check in their brain at the reception and then ask for, wait for commands from their management team. But rather people should, you know, be entrepreneurial, think by themselves. And we have a lot of experts in the organization. So the myth of this pyramid, like management knows best and the rest is just executing. That's really a myth. And we want to change that. And that definitely is a journey on the way. And some people don't like it. Some leaders have been here maybe for decades, used to command and control. They think it's like a different party. So like the party where you suddenly play different music, they suddenly think, hmm, what's this? So that's not my party. So suddenly they sit on the bench while 80% is dancing. They sit on the bench and think, hmm, maybe I should change the party. That's not my party anymore. So and that actually happened. So some people with that change to be more listening, coaching style, they decided to leave because they said, I'm not used to it. I don't want this. And that's fine. So there will be a kind of a shakeout in the organization with that, which is natural and which is also intended that way. And maybe one last personal question. How have you changed in this process? It's pretty much like all the other leaders. You have to force yourself to listen more because a lot of leaders have very strong opinions about certain things sometimes and you have to hold yourself a little back. But it's also fun. And I think it's really about holding the space. So whenever we move back to command and control, for example, it'd be a crisis project or situation where you tend to just say, OK, let's do this. Then you want to rely on experts and say, let's live up to our cultural ambition and actually ask the people who know best how to do this. So holding the space is definitely something we need to or I need to do. Thank you so much, Daniel, for this inspiring conversation. I'm sure it has not only inspired me, but the entire audience. Thank you for coming. Thank you very much for inviting me. Thanks.