Good morning, everyone. Please find a seat. The event will start in 60 seconds. Thank you. Copyright 2020 NET Tigers First of all, how does it feel to hear this voice? Do you feel close to me? Or distant from me? Do you trust me? Who do you think is speaking to you? A colleague? A leader? A human? Or a machine? Would it change anything if you knew? Right now, I'm just a voice. But sometimes, a voice carries a decision. I have something important to share with you. Following a review of business needs, we have made the decision to terminate employment for several colleagues, effective immediately. You are receiving this message because your role is part of this decision. You can take a moment now. I know this is difficult. And I know this may come as a shock. But this decision is necessary. How did that feel? Did you lean in? Or did you feel yourself pull back? Did you listen to the words? Or were your guards up? If you're feeling uneasy, anxious, or a little guarded, I don't blame you. This feeling, right now, is the space between us. And in 2026, that space is wider than ever. When messages shape people's futures, how important is it to know who's actually speaking? Hello, everyone, and good morning. And thank you so much for joining us here today. My name is Jakob. I'm from Implement Consulting Group. And we're incredibly excited to share some new stuff with you today. This is the Change Communication X-Ray 2026. So in the next 45 minutes, we'll walk you through some, we think, super, super interesting insights into AI. Now, we've called the report and the session Rewriting Change. And perhaps you know this small thing on your screen right now. Perhaps you know it now. It is what is also called an M-dash. And if you do use some AI tool, and I'm guessing that most of you today are, you will recognize this because it shows up as a fingerprint of AI every time you get a feedback from whatever AI tool you use. So we decided to use the M-dash to say rewriting change is really what we see here. This is about change communication. I'll get back to that. Rewriting change in the terms of change communication. We also think that the M-dash is something that has a divide, a gap in it. And I want to bring to you the very first insight of the report right now because we think this is perhaps the most interesting insight. And we'll come back to this insight when we go through the themes of today. Because if you look at it, in companies, there is a gap between management and employees. I think we all know that. And maybe it's also natural that there is some kind of gap. But what we see is that this gap keeps growing. This x-ray report that I will take you through in a few seconds shows that because the gap keeps growing and growing and growing. If you look at it and look at the last three x-ray reports we've done in 22, 24 and 26, you can see that the gap is growing to the extent that we think now it's systemic. I'll come back to what that means. You see in 22, 13% is the gap, 22% is the gap and 30% is the gap. What does this mean? Let me show you. When I talk about this, it's the share of respondents who are overall satisfied with the communication connected to the change. So in companies, when you do some kind of transformation and you have some kind of internal what we call change communication, how do leaders see this communication and how do employees see it? And you can see in just four years, it went from 13% to 30%. We think that's a fundamental issue. And by fundamental issue, we mean something that I think most of you, if you are in change communication, you know this, but I'm just going to point it out anyway. Change communication is shaped by, still shaped by, I might say, top-down logic, complicated corporate lingo and internal politics. So you could say, and this is actually beyond AI, I'll come back to AI, but we have alignment at the top. Management thinks this is great, but we have an understanding at the bottom that does not equal what management thinks. This is where we start. So just bear in mind that as we go through these AI-related themes, this is the backdrop. That in companies across Europe, we see 13% in 22, 30% right now. So I just want to take you through the basics and the data set that we are working with when we talk about change communication. It's a digital survey distributed to more than 17,000 professionals. As I said, when we talk about change communication, I just want to make a very short definition of what that means. It is the clear, timely two-way exchange that enables people to understand, shape, and adopt organizational change. If you look at it in 2026 version, we had 832 total respondents from 41 countries and 60% of those respondents work in large organizations, meaning between 1,000 and 10,000 employees globally. When we look at who are these respondents, what roles do they have in the companies they work in, you will see that we have quite a fair split. So we have 27% being employees, 25% being top management, 17% being team leads and middle management. I think it's fair to say that we even have a nice industry split for this to be representative. So if you look at the top three, these are life science and healthcare, it's construction and industrial, and it's consulting and advisory services. So I think we have a nice data set here to be able to say something that has some general knowledge. I will invite two of my nice colleagues in just a few seconds. So we got all of this data in, we analyzed it, and we found three sort of overarching themes, and we want to take you through those themes. Those are accountability, trust, and meaning. And this is very focused on AI. So the other day, Sam Altman of OpenAI, I'm sure you know of this guy, he said that by 2028, AI data centers will hold more of the world's intellectual capacity than all human minds combined. Now, I don't know about you, but I get a sort of a matrix vibe from statements like that. And of course, it has some truth to it, but what is intellectual capability? How do we make decisions in companies? When we talk about change communication, it's basically about the ability for us to allow for people to go into change, to do it in a meaningful way, in an efficient way. And so meaning, and trust, and accountability are super, super important when we talk about how do we ensure that the transformations that we invest in have real merit, being efficient, reaching the goals that we need, and we know that even without AI, only 30% of transformations actually succeed the way we want them to. So I think, just have that in mind as we go through this. And now I just want to invite my colleagues Antonia and Michael to the stage for them to go through these themes with you. And again, thank you so much for coming. And to talk about all these great insights that we have from the report concerning change communication, the state of that in 2026, and also the role that AI plays. And as Jacob alluded to, AI continues to be a hot topic in the media, across the different industries, also across the coffee machine in our different offices. But beneath that headline, the real story is not necessarily just about technology. It's about what it does to us humans, how it rewrites, as Jacob said, meaning, accountability, and trust, and the space between us. Yeah. So today, we'd really like to start a conversation together with you about this widening gap Jacob just mentioned and what we can do to close it. Because if we don't close it, we risk more than just losing control of new tools. We actually risk the very foundation of how we relate, how we thrive, and how we make a difference at work. And we would really like to hear from you. So in case you have any questions or experiences you would like to share, please feel free to drop them in the chat and we'll spend the last 10 minutes of this event in a live Q&A where we really would like to address your most burning questions. And in case you would prefer to share your questions via email, feel free to do so. But with that, let's get started. Let's dive into the first theme and that is basically rewriting accountability. So the first theme we present to you today concerns how we actually use AI in our daily work, but also the impact it has on our surroundings. In other words, who's actually accountable for the message if the script writes itself? That is a really good question. And using AI can really feel like such a rush, especially when it creates content in seconds that would have otherwise taken us at least half an hour or more to create. I guess most people see it like a pretty sweet deal, right? But let's look at the data and let's see what this year's X-ray report actually tells us about the AI usage. In fact, the data shows that four in five respondents use AI at least weekly and 43% even use it already on a daily basis. That's quite a big share. Yeah, definitely. And when they do use AI, 83% say that it boosts their efficiency and allows them to communicate at scale. That sounds pretty good, Antonia. I mean, what is not to like? I mean, more productivity, less headaches in front of the screen? That is true. But unfortunately, it doesn't quite end there because the patterns of our data also show that the use of AI in organizations is still shaped more by individual shortcuts rather than shared practice. And when people use AI tools, they do not necessarily tell their colleagues about it or follow company guidelines. For example, by using non-compliant AI tools instead of their own workplace-compliant ones. So I guess the real conversation here is not necessarily only about how efficient AI can be. It's also about taking responsibility and kind of working together in the same way. Exactly. The question is not whether employees use AI. We know that. They do. It is how we guide that use safely and openly. And here is how we would do that in practice. As a first recommendation, we have set boundaries. It is important to use AOR. It's okay to use AI for the more simple tasks like routine updates, summaries, translations, and FAQs. But it's important to not use AI for tasks that are more personal such as performance feedback, individual conversations, and terminations, crisis communications. And then I guess there is also something about keeping humans responsible in all this. For example, when it comes to naming a sender and a review on every high-stake message and also maybe adding a short line on routine communications when AI somehow assisted and a human reviewed it. Absolutely. Next up, it's about protecting your data. So make sure you define what is safe to use, what needs to be sanitized first, and what should never be shared with an AI. So find examples that really fit your context and make it easy for your colleagues and your employees to understand. Ideally, you also only allow approved AI tools to avoid sensitive data being shared with public tools. And I guess the last recommendation goes very much in line with the third one as well, and that is ensure some kind of guardrails, right? when it comes to, for example, requiring sign-off for legal HR and external announcements. And then, of course, ensuring that your AI policy and, might I say, strategy is up to date. In short, let the tools beat the work while the people still need to own the words and the decisions and the risks that come with it. That's how we turn individual shortcuts into shared practice without losing the control of what really, really matters. And remember, in case this sparks any questions, any curiosity, feel free to drop them in the chat and we'll address them later at the live Q&A. Yes, looking very much forward to that. The second theme we have for you today is rewriting trust. And you can say this theme kind of asks a very simple question but with big implications because if AI helps us write the words, I mean, who do we really trust when those words really matter? That's really well put, Michael. For example, tasks, everyday tasks, such as preparing a Q&A or writing speaker notes or just a simple routine update, AI is already a part of how we work. And to be fair, most people are fine with that. In fact, our data shows that 45% trust AI generated information as much as human written content. I mean, that is quite a high number. Yeah, indeed. And it continues. 61% say it wouldn't even matter if AI or a human created a message as long as the content is useful. That's a pretty crazy insight when you think about it. Yeah, I mean, it must be quite a change from if we just see this like a year ago. I mean, in a sense, AI has moved from some kind of novelty to normal thing to do in the workplace. Absolutely. As we talked to Monique Sütnik, she was one of the experts we interviewed in this field. She pointed out that we're actually picking up on a shift here. This broad acceptance of novel technology, that is new. But here's also a turning point because trust changes when the words actually become or have human consequences. Then suddenly, content is no longer enough and people start asking, who is actually driving that communication? Who's behind it? In fact, our data shows employees actually push back on heavy AI usage for message with human impact. So, for example, 64% say that performance feedbacks should never be heavily AI influenced. And similarly, 58% say the same about sensitive or confidential updates. So, for example, a termination, never heavily AI influenced. 42% argue the same for crisis communication. And 26%, I know it's not the biggest number, but still, it's a quarter of your workforce, says that any messages coming directly from the CEO should never be heavily AI influenced. That was a lot of numbers, Antonia. But maybe to summarize, it's not necessarily the technology they reject as such, the respondents here. It's more maybe the idea of a machine kind of stepping in when emotions and ethics are on the line. Exactly, Michael. And on top of that, there is a relational cost that most leaders seem to often miss. Because what our data shows is that 51% of employees feel less personally connected to the leader of a message when they know that AI played a major role in creating that very message. Meanwhile, only 40% of top and middle management feel the same. So, if we don't kind of catch that, this small efficiency game, or we might call it, can quietly turn into this kind of big leadership distance as Jacob also alluded to in the start of this webinar. Right. Absolutely. And we have already seen what happened to that gap between top management employees, right? Over time, over years, the gap will widen. So, in that sense, it's not like an argument against AI or the use of AI as such. It's more maybe a reminder to use it right. You could say that AI can kind of prepare the ground. It can draft explainers, craft FAQs, translate, maybe summarize. But leaders are here to kind of do a different job and they have a different role to play. They need to provide context, set the directions, show care, and most importantly, they need to. It sounds very simple, but they need to stay present, right? So, you know, after all, people kind of judge the journey by the driver, not the machine. That sounds great, but let's look at how we would do that in practice. Yeah, let's do that. What are some simple moves that keep the trust high even when AI is in the mix? Yes. And the first one we have here, the first recommendation is really showing up for moments that matter. And that is, for example, by delivering significant news live or in person where feasible and also share a written recap and have this kind of two-way dialogue. And I mean really two-way dialogue where you host like Q&A sessions within 48 to 72 hours to address concerns and really try to get the real conversation, honest conversation going instead of letting AI do the work for you. Yes, that's right. Next up, it's around being explicit about the ownership and the role AI played. So really make sure you state who owns the decision and the outcome and disclose AI assistance on routine comms if it clarifies the process and avoid sensitive messages if it creates, avoid the AI use on sensitive messages if it creates distance. Then I guess there is also this notion of presence over polish because we know it can be very tempting to kind of draft a nice message and then really let AI do the polishing making it even more nice sounding and whatnot but the words are more real and authentic when they're yours. And this also goes together with really as we talked about before prioritizing these kind of conversations human to human conversations prioritize small group dialogues side visits and two-way forms for complex change to really address the context your organization is in. Yes. And lastly as our recommendations for this theme it's really about closing the loop so make sure that you capture any unanswered questions that might have been in a Q&A or so and commit to follow-ups and report back on any actions taken so that you really show progress and close the loop. So we can say in other words AI can kind of guide the route and keep us moving but trust still depends on the driver or in other words how leaders actually handle the bends explain the detours and help people feel safe. Yes. Absolutely. And if we get that balance right we get the speed of AI without actually losing the human presence that holds the people together. And this is your reminder in case any questions come up feel free to drop them in the chat we look forward to addressing them. Yes. And that wraps up our second theme. Yes. Then we have the last theme and that is rewriting meaning. So if accountability is about who speaks and trust is about who actually listens then meaning is what makes communication actually help people do their work. And to be honest AI has really given us new horsepower. Our drafts get generated polished translated and shipped at a speed no one could have ever seen coming. But as the volume rises clarity unfortunately seems to thin. So messages arrive but they don't really guide. So our data shows that 87% say major changes were poorly communicated. I mean let that sink in for a second. This is a massive share of people. And when asking them which of the issues they experienced around the change communication these top four key issues were reported. 38% say that there was simply no room for dialogue so it was only one way communication. 32% say it was too high level to be useful so simply too distant. 28% said it was impersonal too generic and lack of emotions and lastly 25% said it was simply not well timed. So before we talked about how AI actually makes us feel more efficient on an individual basis I guess however that very efficiency also has this flip side it seems and the increased amount and frequency of messages can really quickly create this kind of communication clutter right and inefficiency on the receiver's end. So in other words you can say we tend to over communicate without necessarily providing the orientation that the people in the organization need. There's definitely a risk. And what we see is that it is not a reach problem so it is actually a relevance problem what you just said over communication and people get reached but it's not the right message so what the data shows is that nearly one in five cannot connect the internal communication around a change to the actual work which means the message travels the distance it's being created it travels but then it hits but then it dissolves on the arrival so basically it's not relatable. Yeah so in other words Antonia it kind of multiplies words but not necessarily multiply the understanding on the receiver's end. That's absolutely right which also means that meaning needs human judgment so we need us humans to be critical about the created content after all we are the ones that can provide context interpretation and make choices about what matters and about how to say it. Yes and you could say what does that do to our role as communicators in this crazy setting in this crazy development of AI you can say in a way our role is kind of shifting from being content creators to sense makers more and more so and curators of information content and in a way if you ask me that's kind of a great upgrade so Antonia if we utilize this upgrade how do we actually restore meaning in the system that is essentially built for speed? That's a good question but I think it's actually pretty simple when you think about it because there are organizational or different organizational levels for a reason because they simply have different jobs to do. So let's take top managers for example they are here to make directions unmistakable so it's about them to stay or it's about them stating why now and why and what are the top three priorities it's not about polishing but it's about stripping AI generated drafts down to the essentials it's about the decisions the expectations and the trade-offs that need to be communicated so really set boundaries for the role of AI in strategic messages and publicly own the final word. Yes but this senior management don't make an organization by themselves we also have middle managers having a very important role to play when it actually comes to exactly translating that strategy from top management into reality that people can actually understand and act upon and be motivated around and this sense AI can be used for structuring your thoughts and then really try to after that localize with real context risk and open questions as well so in a way surface what's unclear sensitive or undecided create this kind of human touch points short check-ins and clarifying conversations that makes for these sense-making moments that's a really important role for the managers to play here. Yeah that's right and then lastly what we have is the employees of course and their role is really to protect the relevance by challenging the noise because there can be a lot of noise so it's important for you to ask for the so what or the how when messages don't really guide your actions escalate any unclear or conflicting messages with concrete examples and flag when the volume increases but the clarity doesn't so be an early signal of communication drift. So the goal here is not necessarily to communicate more it's more about having clearer communication that actually drives decisions forward in the organization. And AI can support to create these messages right but leaders have to carry the meaning and when we do communication stops being just noise and starts to actually navigate. Yeah and speaking about navigation Antonia I mean three years ago we were just being back for a short second AI kind of felt like this self-driving car with our hands kind of cautiously hovering above the wheel just to take over in case we were alert we were cautious and maybe you know ready to kind of lean in to also have our own say when it comes to actually influencing AI but it seems at least according to this survey today that many of us are leaning more back into the seat of the car letting the tools steer more and more of the journey and of the communication that we actually sent into the world. And let's be honest the short-term gains they are real. Faster production more scale we are so productive but as futurist Sophie Vitville who we interviewed also as part of our expert interviews in this field she reminded us the bigger risk isn't losing control to AI it's actually losing the connection between people and with that the risk of losing the relevance of people in this very equation. And I think when we look at the landscape today I mean especially as agistic AI makes tools more autonomous and content more kind of fluid we're kind of edging towards this kind of interesting AI to AI flow with messages being shaped long before a person actually reads them. And when the human is lifted out of that loop the core premise of communication is challenged because after all the engine of communication is the human mind it's about context it's about care and creating meaning. But I guess we have something to say here as professional communicators I mean that's exactly where our role sharpens here. So communication has always been the human link in complex transformations it has kind of helped people feel engaged motivated and able to act but if that very link is being rewritten we have to ride our part with intention. Yeah and we may not be able to slow the pace of AI I mean for sure we are not but we can choose how we show up as this road bends into a future that's simply yet unknown to us. And speaking about showing up Antonia I feel we have done a lot of talking now we would also like to hear from you and all the questions you might have so let's join Jacob to take a look at the questions and be in the hot seat. great and we will not be able to answer all your questions today but if you have further questions or want to be in a conversation with us please reach out we will have a QR code that you can scan so you can easily reach out to us and we can have a cool conversation about the challenges that you face in your organization we would love to be part of that conversation but let's dive into the questions Jacob and Antonia I've been very much looking forward to this part of the segment let's start with the top here what do you wish you could say about the state of change communication today that you can't I think personally I think it would be great if we could say that change communication is actually developed with the receiver in mind because what we see now is still it's more about alignment at the top we talked about that and I really wish that this would be the state of change communication it would make the understanding so much easier and it would really make the gap close and bring the employees and the top management closer together and what do you think of that Jacob in terms of kind of decreasing this gap that Antonia is talking about I think that you know we were lucky enough about a month ago to meet up with a professor from Stanford who talked about this funny notion that at least triggered something in me that he said it's not about using AI it's about having AI as a companion and I think we at that point we'd already done the x-ray and I thought that maybe now it's outdated what we did but then we talked about it and I think that this is an incredible time to be alive if you do change communication and AI is an incredible tool and in many ways it's a renaissance time because we can do so much right now but if the effect is a widening gap I think that what we cannot say today is that we need to put so much more intention into what we do it needs to be change communication needs to be tied up so much more with the business goals and we can measure it we can also use AI for that so I think that I hope that in the near future starting already now change communication by the help co-facilitated by AI is something that can really really drive change and talking about the future we have an interesting question here Gardner predicted that by 2028 75% of employees will rely on chatbots to obtain relevant internal communications how do you see this development and then there is a parenthesis I disagree because of the missing trust that's an interesting future outlook isn't it definitely I think and it said chatbots so like internal almost like a customer service what we know normally yeah okay that is a quite a crazy situation I mean what we do see is that internal AI tools are incredibly well developed by now and also used to find internal communication or find internal files and you know get sorted but I think that is a crazy argument to say that all internal communication will be part of a chatbot situation I agree with the missing trust because the human element is simply the most important element to actually convey the message and to be there to react to questions to react to emotions yeah I totally agree and I think just to add one point is that we talk to business leaders already now who think that we are in this autonomous future right now that we can simply outsource change communication to chatbots and to AI and I'll just say good luck with that I think I saw just a funny article in The Economist the other day saying that AI won't take your job but people using AI probably will and so I think if you are sitting out there listening and you have some kind of role within change communication I think this is an absolutely amazing time to grab and to seize this opportunity and to use all of the tools that are available to figure out what works within your organization but without your governance your human oversight it's simply going to crash you can have all sorts of amazing stuff coming out liquid stuff like you can tweak your article into a podcast you can already do that today you can do amazing types of videos everything that you can imagine you can do with AI but nothing you do without your intention and linking this to the business goals will simply just dilute what you're doing and you will see the gap widening but when it comes to seizing this opportunity we also have another question here how should I kick off a team conversation about using AI in our communications where do I start that's also a great question I think I really like what you mentioned before the whole topic around the sparring partner of AI and I think that's exactly what I would start a conversation around with my team to really say okay where do we see the use cases of using AI where does it make sense but then maybe also limiting where does it not make sense where should we never and then really getting into this habit of still being the author of it so tweaking the outcome and not just relying on this being the perfect example and then copy paste and move on so it's really about using AI more as a sparring partner and getting that kind of sense into your team's way of working I think that would be my approach I also think that well I think you just presented right now some of the guardrails and I think that one of the things I really like about being in implement is that we really value curiosity and I think so what should you start by doing with your team honestly being super curious about what can this do I think when we talk about guardrails and maybe staying off stuff like you know tough messages layoffs performance reviews it's true but I also think that when you think about AI today you think about AI being something that can make efficiencies within repetitive tasks absolutely true but I also think if you have the human oversight what are the non-repetitive tasks that you can use AI for I think it's an amazing opportunity to be curious about how could we use this as a companion and how does that fall back on the teams in terms of how we operate differently and going into the future which is already of today a genetic AI that becomes even more important to have that discussion what agents could we have could agents even help us safeguard the guardrails of AI to say now we need to have some human insight human oversight I think that's super interesting as well I think it's also important to actually discuss what does human oversight mean so really have a conversation around in your context what does it mean do we need a four-eye principle or is it enough if I look over it I think there's something around really being practical around how do we work with AI in our communication and speaking about AI as kind of a sparing partner rather than just a vendor you might say we have another question here can you share a real example of how the use of AI in management has actually backfired and I think I would like to not just say one example I have multiple examples of that but I mean our society is going through a lot of reorganizations right now a lot of also unfortunately firings layoffs and I've had multiple instances where the leadership after those tricky situations have actually felt more empathetic and ready to answer any question but in a written version on mail perception yeah exactly so the employees have been a bit surprised by how all of a sudden they seem so empathetic when they wrote all these different mails like reaching out when it comes to any support you might need and then they met them in the hallways and the story was a bit different and I guess it goes back to the whole notion of using AI as a sparing partner to support your own voice in the organization not just to write the words for you but actually make them yours as well in a way that makes sense for you so you still retain that credibility you need as a management team instead of seeing AI as something that you can send out even though it's very tempting right because it ensures productivity at least on an individual basis it feels like that but how do you actually navigate around that do you have any examples I think it's a nice principle to never do an AI version of yourself or your organization or your management team that you cannot back up in the physical world I guess there's also something around if you actually have written it yourself you might have even felt the emotions it's easier to remember and then react when you in real life meet that person while it can be a 30 second task copy paste send off and then you're like what did I actually write so there's something around actually living through the production but I think we're not against AI so it's really about just making sure that it lands well I actually have another example of a company where the CEO actually wrote a weekly email out to a small company giving updates on his week's focus his reflections his perspectives and suddenly the tone of these emails started shifting and the organization assumed that AI was used for these messages and it completely backfired the whole trust in the CEO and in actually taking the time to reflect I mean who knows if before he actually wrote himself or know someone supported him on it but in the end the fact that suddenly AI played a role in the tone the grammatic the words used the phrasing it just suddenly sounded too polished and not authentic so I think it really shows and I guess the next question also loves to what are exactly talking about Antonia this gap between management and employees what do see happening actually in that gap as AI agents become more and more common in workplaces what is at stake do want to go feel free I think again we touched upon it a few times already there's just to link to what Antonia just said I think there's I don't think I know from research our own and other research sources that there is already now a negative expectation if you will that AI is being used so you can say that AI is evolving but so is the human race and the workforce of companies that we expect the level of communication to be higher and higher because we know that this is fueled by AI but again linking back to what I said if the intentions the real intentions are not there cannot outsmart people especially not white colored people in organizations and if will can also not outsmart blue colored people so have to close that gap within the space within the age of AI I would argue that have to be even more clear than before AI in terms of what are your intentions and also figuring out what are the tough formats why is it easier for me to do a one way town hall why is it easier for me as a CEO or top management to do the mail what would it take for me to I think that is really something that we as change communicators need to advise on and that goes as well for the people we work with in organizations that advise their top senior management because I think that is the one thing to look for that the difficult things the things where the human side of transformation is visible that invest that are taking chances that are actually showing up in those situations that is becoming increasingly important and unfortunately we're running short on time but maybe one last question about what do take away what's the one sentence that this survey has left with diving into all these insights what's your takeaway I think my key takeaway is the fact that trust really changes when the stakes become human and then suddenly the whole AI acceptance kind of yeah scatters and I think that is super important to just keep in mind that the real differentiator in the end is still the human being present showing up and not relying on AI in certain cases absolutely same for me trust it's on the one hand side it's such a tangible notion you can feel it when it's there in companies you can see it we can measure it but at the same time shifting notion it really evolves and it's very difficult actually it's very difficult to understand the algorithm of trust so I think that is something that trust itself and the feeling of trust in humans probably won't change but the elements that go into doing a trustworthy transformation being a trustworthy management that is certainly changing at the speed of AI right now and yeah it's I'm very curious about that it's an exciting future in many ways that was all we had for today all the insights that we wanted to share with but the conversation has not ended here we wanted to continue with so please reach out to us if you have any questions or you want to get into any dialogue when it comes to the challenges that are facing your organization but for now thank so much for tuning in and we'll see soon